U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–532 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 110–1261 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SCIENCE AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY DECISIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECTOR SOLUTIONS 

TO GLOBAL WARMING, OVERSIGHT, AND 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 7, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECTOR SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL WARMING, OVERSIGHT, 

AND CHILDRENS HEALTH PROTECTION

BARBARA BOXER, New Jersey, Chairman 

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 7, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 3 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 5 

Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .............................. 7 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 145 

WITNESSES 

Gray, Hon. George, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and 

Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Grifo, Francesca, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Director, Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists ................................................................. 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 70 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 72 

Gilman, Paul, Ph.D., Chief Sustainability Officer, Covanta Energy ................... 83 

Michaels, David, Ph.D., MPH, Research Professor and Associate Chairman, 

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University ................................................................................................. 84 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 87 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 89 

Thurston, George D., SC.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine, New York 

University School of Medicine, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine 93 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ........................................ 100 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ..................................... 102 

Roger O. McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico ................................................................................... 103 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 117 

Rhomberg, Lorenz R., Ph.D., Principal, Gradient Corporation ............................ 119 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121 

Balbus, John M., M.D., MPH, Chief Health Scientist, Environmental Defense 

Fund ...................................................................................................................... 130 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 133 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

American Lung Association ............................................................................. 161 

American Chemistry Council ........................................................................... 167 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SCIENCE AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY DECISIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECTOR SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL

WARMING, OVERSIGHT, AND CHILDRENS HEALTH PROTECTION, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, 

Alexander 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The Committee will come to order. 

Today we will discuss the scientific integrity of the decision of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush administration. EPA was created by President Nixon to be an independent agency designed to protect our families, our children and 

our natural environment from harm. 

Unfortunately, what we will hear today is that the Bush administration is discarding the best available science and instead, is 

seeking the advice of special interests who would benefit from 

weaker environmental standards. 

A clear pattern has emerged at EPA. When it comes to who wins 

and who loses, time and time again, the polluting special interests 

come out on top at the expense of the health of the American people. They are forcing politics into the entire scientific process from 

the very beginning of the EPA’s supposedly independent system for 

assessing health and environmental risks. We know this because 

the GAO report is clear. The GAO system has told us that the EPA 

is institutionalizing a system where scientists are thrown to the 

back of the room and special interests are invited to the table. That 

is during a process that is supposed to be pristine and is supposed 

to only consider what the impact is to the health of our people. 

EPA has a special Children’s Health Advisory Committee, because we all know that children are particularly vulnerable to the 

toxic effects of pollution. This important advice has been repeatedly 

ignored. Yesterday at our hearing on perchlorate and TCE, we put 

a number of documents into the record showing the deep concern 

of this Children’s Health Advisory Committee. For example, the 

agency refused to follow that committee’s proposal to better protect 

2 

children from smog pollution, toxic fine soot pollution, lead contamination in the air, and again, as I mentioned, perchlorate contamination of tap water, all of which are especially dangerous to 

children. 

We must carefully scrutinize this unfortunate pattern, because it 

is dangerous, it has dangerous implications for children and families, and it must not be allowed to continue. 

Let me recount just a few more examples of this Administration’s 

rejection of scientific advice. There were early signs of a willingness 

to put politics before public health. Soon after the President took 

office, he suspended the Clinton drinking water standard for arsenic, which was supported by strong evidence from the National 

Academy of Sciences. We also learned early on that White House 

officials were deleting and editing scientific material in EPA reports on global warming. 

More recently, on the eve of a hearing in this Committee on the 

public health threats posed by global warming, the White House 

deleted page after page of scientific findings from testimony that 

was about to be delivered to us by the head of the CDC. And they 

have still refused to provide the documents related to this incident 

as requested by this Committee. 

EPA Administrator Johnson also recently ignored his own technical staff’s advice to grant California a waiver under the Clean Air 

Act to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles. This would 

affect, is affecting up to 19 states. This advice was based on scientific information about the health and environmental threats 

posed by global warming. But in its place, the Administration 

echoed requests from the automobile industry in its final decision 

document. 

We also see this problem in EPA’s clean air program. After 30 

years of closely working with its independent clean air scientific 

advisors, in the last few years EPA has repeatedly ignored its 

Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. For example, over 80 million people live in areas with unhealthy levels of toxic soot pollution, which can damage the heart and lungs and cause premature 

death. 

Instead, the EPA Administrator ignored the scientific recommendations from the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, 

CASAC, and left that standard unchanged. The scientific advisors 

found that ‘‘there is clear and convincing evidence that significant 

adverse human health effects occur’’ under the standard. Imagine: 

they set a standard and the scientists said there is clear and convincing evidence significant adverse human health effects occurred. 

What is the point of the EPA? 

EPA’s recent action on ozone or smog was similar. Over 90 million people live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog pollution, 

which damages the lungs and can lead to premature death. Again, 

EPA ignored its scientific advisors’ unanimous recommendation to 

set the level as low as 60 but no higher than 70 parts per billion 

of ozone. EPA set the standard at 75 parts per billion, again ignoring the scientists. 

The Government Accountability Office testified before this Committee last week, and I reference this early, that EPA’s new policy 

for developing the risk assessments used to set levels safe to peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85532.TXT VERN
3 

ple—let me repeat that. The GAO testified before this Committee 

last week on EPA’s new policy for developing the risk assessments 

used to set safe levels of exposure to toxic chemicals. GAO found 

that the policy increases delays, undercuts EPA’s scientific credibility by keeping interagency comments secret—this is a new thing. 

Not only are they doing harm, but they are keeping the meetings 

where they make these decisions secret. And it gives the White 

House and polluting agencies like DOD a privileged seat at the 

table, by extension, DOD contractors have a seat at the table, when 

scientific decisions are being made about toxic chemicals. 

In the last few days, a senior EPA appointee, Mary Gade, told 

the Chicago Tribune she was forced to resign for aggressively pursuing the cleanup of a dioxin-contaminated site in Michigan. My 

colleague Senator Whitehouse, who I will give the gavel to shortly, 

has taken the lead in getting to the bottom of that issue. I look forward to his remarks. 

The Bush administration is failing to meet its mandate to protect 

public health as an independent, science-driven institution. The 

American people are paying the price with their health. This is an 

unacceptable pattern, and it must be reversed. 

And since I went 7 minutes, Senator Alexander, I will give you 

7 minutes. I am now going to turn the gavel over to Senator 

Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I don’t think 

I will go 7 minutes, but I thank you for your courtesy. 

I look forward to the testimony today and to discussing how 

science informs public policy. I think maybe that is the most important thing I could say in my 7 minutes, is that scientists are to inform public policy under our system, not to make public policy. The 

Chairman mentioned someone rejecting staff’s advice. I reject my 

staff’s advice every day. I think I know more about some things 

than they do. And I was elected by the people. I imagine the Chairman and Senator Whitehouse do the same. 

So I think one of the most important things for us to do here 

today is discuss what is the role of science in making public policy. 

One definition of that, by Professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University of Law, he wrote in an article called Evaluating Sciences, ‘‘Policy differences are generally not the result of a 

dearth of scientific information or a lack of independent analysis. 

Rather, they are usually rooted in disagreements about fundamental values.’’ 

So if it is simply a matter of appointed officials or Senators listening to their science advisors and saying, I am taking other considerations into account and I am coming to a different conclusion 

than you might if you were elected or if you were appointed, that 

is one thing. Another thing might be to look at the advice of science 

advisors and see if it is made public enough, whether all of us can 

see what a scientific advisor might have said and then see the reasons why the policymaker might have come to a different conclusion. That might help us, in a democracy, to understand and make 

sure that science is informing the making of public policy. 

4 

It is always interesting to me how much President Lincoln contributed to our society. I am reminded of a new thing every day. 

It was in 1863 that under the Lincoln presidency, the National 

Academy of Sciences was founded. They are independent, they have 

resources from the Federal Government. Their job was to advise us. 

They don’t make the policy, they advise us. I worked with Senator 

Bingaman and many others on our America COMPETES Act, we 

asked for their advice. Then we made the decision. 

Thinking about mercury, I think as the Administrator knows, I 

have been very strong on clean air. I come from an area where we 

have the most polluted national park, the Great Smokies in Knoxville, near my home town, which is at the top of the asthma list. 

So I want mercury and nitrogen and sulfur cleaned. 

But let’s take mercury. The question comes, do we have the ability, is it technologically possible to take 70 percent of the mercury 

out of the air of coal-fired power plants? Or should it be 90? The 

Administration decided 70. I think it ought to be 90. Should it be 

a cap and trade program? The Administration decided yes. I decided no, because the mercury, in my view, goes up from the power 

plants and comes down nearby. 

Do I think that is an example of corruption in the EPA? No. I 

think the Administrator came to a different conclusion than I did 

based upon the available scientific technology. So I think it is perfectly fine for us to have a spirited argument about whether the 

mercury standard ought to be 70 or 90, or whether there ought to 

be a cap and trade or not. But I don’t think that is any occasion 

to accuse the Administration and the EPA Director of some corrupt 

attitude or listening to improper people. That happens not just on 

the right, but sometimes on the left. 

I remember how shocked I was when Camilla Benbo, the dean 

of the Peabody School of Vanderbilt, one of the most distinguished 

colleges of education and one of the most distinguished deans, had 

her nomination by the President held up because she had written 

an article one time about how gifted girls learn differently than 

gifted boys. That was the science, but some people didn’t want to 

hear it, so they weren’t even going to confirm her and let her be 

on the National Scientific Board. 

Or many of us believe that we should be doing, with $4 gasoline, 

we should give Virginia the opportunity to drill offshore. Science 

has shown that there may be more seepage from the ocean floor 

than there is from drilling for oil and gas offshore. But one Senator 

may say, I don’t want to see that or I don’t want that to happen, 

another Senator may say, I do want it to happen. That doesn’t 

mean either of us has a bad motivation, it means we simply have 

a different point of view. 

Or the same with nuclear power. Science shows that it is clean 

power in terms of the four pollutants, and it produces 70 percent 

of our clean energy at a time when we are concerned about global 

warming. But many policymakers and elected officials look at all 

the facts and they take into other accounts. Science gives them this 

amount of information, but they say, but then there is proliferation 

and then there is the question of waste, and then there is the question of safety. And weighing all that, they come to a different conclusion. 

5 

So my hope today is to listen, listen very carefully. If there are 

examples where scientific advice is being mis-represented, I think 

that is unfortunate in a democratic society and we ought to do our 

best to change that and put the spotlight on it. But at the same 

time, I think we ought to make sure that we keep in mind the role 

of the scientist and the role of the policymakers. We don’t elect the 

scientists to make the decision. We established the National Academies and we appoint scientific advisory committees. And let me be 

specific about the EPA’s scientific advisory committee. Section 109 

of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to appoint these 

committees, such as the ones who recommended the rules on ozone. 

And their role, it says, is advisory. So it is the job of the Administrator to take all things into account. 

The EPA Administrator establishes the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard based upon his or her judgment. Could be bad 

judgment, could be good judgment. But the science is there to inform the judgment, not to make the judgment. 

Finally, Section 109 of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to establish the National Primary Ambient Air Quality ‘‘in 

the judgment of the Administrator.’’ So I might quarrel with the 

Administrator about the mercury standard, but I am not going to 

accuse the Administrator of bad judgment, or different judgment, 

but if he ignores the scientists, that is his job. It is his job to consider it and his job to tell us about it if we ask about it, if we want 

to know why he chose to override judgments of scientists working 

with him. 

Another thing I will be listening for, and I would be interested 

to know, is who are the scientists? 

Senator BOXER. You have gone over. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Then I will wind down. Who are the scientists? A lot of Senators think we are scientists, but we are not 

really. So there are scientists and there are scientists. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for your courtesy on the ozone 

standard. We can talk about that more. I saw what the scientific 

community said and I want the air cleaner in east Tennessee. I 

also heard from the county judges who want to make sure that we 

can bring the auto plants, too. 

So weighing the scientific recommendation with the requests of 

locally elected officials who are weighing that I think is a proper 

judgment. I welcome the hearing, and I look forward to it, and I 

thank the Chairman for her courtesy in giving me so much time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If I could follow my distinguished colleague from Tennessee’s thoughts for a moment, I think there are 

important distinctions between the policymaking function of an administrative agency and the science development function of a regulatory agency. Both potentially lend themselves to abuse. And if 

it should turn out that in the policymaking function, the application of the policy judgment seems over and over and over and over 

to the point of inevitability to come down on the side of industry 

and never on the side of environment and public health, it raises 

a significant question about whether that policymaking function is 

6 

being done legitimately, honorably, with integrity and on the merits, or whether somebody has managed to get a thumb onto the 

scale of the administrative process. 

But I don’t think that is so much the concern that we are addressing today. The concern we are trying to address here today is 

the question of whether the foundation of fact upon which those 

policy determinations get made is being itself polluted within the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Clearly, if one’s intention is to 

put a thumb on the scales in favor of industry and in favor of polluters, rather than in favor of the environment and in favor of public health protection, it is a little bit hard to come out and do that 

directly. It is much easier if you can get into the science itself and 

pollute the very basis of the discussion, so that you give yourself 

cover down the road. 

The question I think we face today is whether the Bush Environmental Protection Agency, under its current Administrator, Stephen Johnson, is fulfilling, in either dimension, really, its core 

long-standing mission to protect our environment and our health, 

without regard to politics or special interests and without fear or 

favor. The increasing weight of the evidence suggests that it is not. 

We heard just recently of the forced resignation of Mary Gade as 

EPA’s regional administrator for the Great Lakes Region, saying 

that Administrator Johnson’s top lieutenants stripped her of her 

powers and told her to quit or be fired because of her aggressive 

pursuit of Dow Chemical in connection with dioxin contamination 

in waters near Lake Michigan. We don’t know yet what the full 

story is on this, and I am going to withhold judgment, but certainly 

that is an alarming signal that we have seen. And it smacks of 

similar activities we have seen recently in the Department of Justice. I am on the Judiciary Committee, and certainly there are similarities between the eight U.S. Attorneys fired by the White House 

who by all accounts were well-regarded and experienced in their 

fields, just as Ms. Gade appears to be well-regarded and experienced in her field. They had received strong performance evaluations in positions that by all accounts are ordinarily given extremely wide latitude. Certainly they were when I was a U.S. Attorney. And Ms. Gade similarly has received strong performance 

evaluations, evidently, and was operating in a position where she 

has wide latitude. And suddenly, poof, a forced resignation in the 

context of a dispute with a major industry participant. 

Chairman Boxer has recently held hearings that have indicated 

considerable concern about the pollution of the science at the EPA. 

The recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, we will 

hear from today, and countless previous cases raise the same concern, and that is that the Environmental Protection Agency has 

been co-opted by the Administration to serve special interests and 

has twisted the science in order to achieve the results that they 

wish to achieve. 

Under fire like this, I think the EPA needs true leadership that 

will address the criticisms head-on and will give EPA employees 

and all Americans confidence that the important mission of this 

agency is being accomplished. We don’t appear to have that right 

now. In fact, Administrator Johnson has not even deigned to appear before us today. It is not the first time he has declined the 

7 

opportunity to testify and the last few times that he did appear, 

he has been significantly less than forthcoming. His answers have 

been evasive and unresponsive, as those of Dr. Gonzales. I have 

seen him repeating answers that sounded, frankly, lawyer-crafted 

to contain more strategy than truth. I suppose that were he here 

today, we could expect no different. Nevertheless, it would have 

been nice if he had showed up. 

We have heard very, very serious criticisms leveled at his agency. 

EPA scientists, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, just 

last month, faced both suppression and distortion of scientific findings underlying the EPA’s decision. Suppression and distortion, to 

the detriment of both science in general and the health of our Nation. Yesterday, we heard testimony from Richard Wiles about unprecedented levels of industry influence in every scientific panel 

and committee at the NIH and the EPA, an overall corruption of 

science that we have seen in this Administration. And Dr. Goldman 

just a few days earlier, last week, testified that the IRIS interagency process provides a back door through which industry groups 

can exert pressure to modify EPA’s conclusions or to subject the 

process to endless delays that undermines the public’s trust in the 

EPA. And this is all just in the last week or two. 

Against that fire, and against what I think is legitimate public 

concern, Mr. Johnson has responded by deriding his critics as yammering critics. I noticed that in Mr. Gray’s testimony, we will talk 

a little bit more further, he doesn’t even mention these concerns. 

It is all just hunky-dory over at EPA, everybody is just doing a 

lovely job. 

Madam Chair, I hope that this hearing will give us a clearer 

sense of exactly what is going on at EPA. I will close by saying that 

I come from a public service family. My father and grandfather 

were foreign service officers. I have seen first-hand in their lives 

the importance of people stepping into public service and taking on 

the duty of integrity, of honesty, and of doing your job on the merits, rather than allowing yourself to be co-opted by special interests. It is a core value, and I think it is a core value that EPA at 

present needs to convince the American public that it still holds. 

Thank you. Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Well, for an opposing view, let me get on the 

record in saying that I don’t believe that you or Administrator 

Johnson or any of the rest of them are co-opts by special interests. 

I think it is perfectly understandable since it is a science hearing 

today that Administrator Johnson would send a scientists. So that 

doesn’t bother me a bit. 

But I do think that one of our primarily responsibilities in this 

Committee is to ensure that regulatory decisions are based on 

sound science. That is something I have believed is important for 

a long, long period of time. Too often the environmental policy decisions that are made by EPA and other science-based agencies are 

driven by political or personal agendas. I think we all know that. 

You see these in the types of research that gets done and the types 

of grants that get awarded. 

8 

It is my hope that this hearing will help shed some light on how 

science is used by policymakers and that we can arrive at some 

concrete suggestions for making the process better. I believe that 

there are some success stories that need to be discussed today, generally speaking. Addressing lead exposure is one of the great American success stories, according to the data from the CDC and others, the immediate concentration of lead in the blood of children 5 

years old and under has declined by 89 percent between 1976 and 

1980. 

Now, this is particularly of interest to me, Madam Chairman, because my area of Tar Creek, and you remember, when I became 

Chairman, I said, one thing we are going to do is what we failed 

to do before and had not been able to do for 30 years, is cleanup 

the most devastating Superfund sites. We had the highest level in 

the Nation of blood lead level in our kids in Northern Oklahoma. 

Another example is EPA’s recent changes to the Integrated Risk 

Information System. These changes allow the public to be involved 

in the risk assessment process sooner. Now, environmental groups, 

scientists and the regulated community can provide data, research 

and comments on risk assessments before they are finalized. Additionally, there is now a concerted outreach effort to members of the 

scientific community and more rigorous peer review. I understand 

that there are those in this Committee who believe that this is 

somehow stifling the EPA scientists. But I don’t understand how 

someone can stand up and say they support the public right to 

know, the scientific community participation and transparency 

when an agency makes regulatory decisions, but not support those 

very same principles when it comes to risk assessment. 

More science means better decisions and more defensible decisions. Today’s hearing will also address case studies of the importance of science in regulatory decisionmaking with a focus on clean 

air issues and children’s health. However, in the rush to try to dissect these individual cases and lay blame on whether science was 

adhered to properly or not, the bigger picture message gets lost. 

Our air is cleaner than it ever has been before. This is something 

that people don’t understand. Since the Clean Air Amendments 

passed, it is. It is a real success story. Our air is actually cleaner, 

and nobody talks about that. The levels of the six criteria pollutants are continuing to decline. Air toxics monitoring is expanding 

and reductions of benzene, acid rain and haze are contributing to 

significant improvements in air quality and environmental health. 

However, despite these improvements in the last 2 years, EPA 

has significantly strengthened or proposed to strengthen three of 

the five criteria pollutants, all driven by citizens’ suits and courtordered deadlines. And they have once again been attacked by 

stakeholders on both sides for doing so. 

Reduction levels are now being debated so intensely and at such 

marginal levels, one must stop and consider if there ever will be 

a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety that will satisfy the critics. Instead, we are left with 

a brand new web of economic burdens that we are passing on to 

the States, many of which are just now beginning to make real improvements from the previous strengthening. What we have are 

more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress. 

9 

And I am pleased to recognize Dr. McClellan, the Past Chair of 

the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who has detailed the 

many flaws and questionable approaches taken in justification of 

the recent final ozone rule, as well as the 2006 PM rule and others. 

I look forward to his comments on how the science panel often no 

longer offers its judgment on the scientific integrity of the process, 

but its policy opinions. So I thank you for holding this hearing 

today and look forward to our witnesses and certainly beginning 

with Dr. Gray. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE , U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Good morning. Today’s hearing will focus on science and how it is used in environmental regulatory decisions. I have always believed that one of the primary responsibilities of this committee is to ensure that regulatory decisions are based on sound 

science. Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other 

science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in 

types of research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my 

hope that this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policymakers and that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process 

better. 

I believe that there are some success stories that need to be discussed here today. 

Generally speaking, addressing lead exposure is one of the great American success 

stories. According to data from the CDC and others, the median concentration of 

lead in the blood of children 5 years old and under has declined 89 percent since 

the period of 1976–1980, to 1.6 micrograms per deciliter in 2003–2004. Another example is EPA’s recent changes to the Integrated Risk Information System. These 

changes allow the public to be involved in the risk assessment process sooner. Now, 

environmental groups, scientists, and the regulated community can provide data, research, and comments on risk assessments before they are finalized. Additionally, 

there is now a concerted outreach effort to members of the scientific community and 

more rigorous peer review. I understand that there are those on this committee who 

believe this is somehow stifling EPA scientists or putting politics into the scientific 

process. But I don’t understand how someone can stand up and say they support 

public right-to-know, scientific community participation, and transparency when the 

Agency makes regulatory decisions but not support those very same principles when 

it comes to risk assessment. More science means better decisions—more defensible 

decisions. 

Today’s hearing will also address case studies of the importance of science in regulatory decisionmaking, with a focus on clean air issues and children’s health. However, in the rush to try and dissect these individual cases and lay blame on whether 

science was adhered to properly or not, the bigger picture message gets lost. Our 

air is cleaner than it ever has been before; the levels of the six criteria pollutants 

are continuing to decline, air toxics monitoring is expanding and reductions in benzene, acid rain, and haze are contributing to significant improvements in air quality 

and environmental health. However, despite these improvements, in the last 2 

years, EPA has significantly strengthened or proposed to strengthen 3 of the 6 criteria pollutants, all driven by citizen suits and court ordered deadlines, and the 

agency once again has been attacked by stakeholders on both sides for doing so. Reduction levels are now being debated so intensely and at such marginal levels that 

one must stop and consider if there ever will be a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety that will satisfy the critics. Instead, 

we are left with a brand new web of economic burdens that we are passing on to 

the states, many of which are just now beginning to make real improvements from 

the previous strengthening. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress. 

I am pleased to recognize Dr. McClellan, a past Chair of the Clean Air Science 

Advisory Committee, who has detailed the many flaws and questionable approaches 

taken in justification of the recent final ozone rule, as well as the 2006 PM rule 

and others. I look forward to his comments on how the science panel often no longer 

offers its judgment of the scientific integrity of the process, but its policy opinions. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

this morning. 

10 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. [Presiding] Dr. Gray, we are ready to hear 

your testimony. We have your written testimony. We would ask 

that you confine your oral remarks to 7 minutes, so that we all 

have a chance to have a discussion at the conclusion of them. Because you are the solitary witness on this panel, I will give you 7 

minutes. Future witnesses in panel form will get 5 minutes each. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE GRAY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. GRAY. Good morning. I thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is Dr. George Gray. I am the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development 

with the Environmental Protection Agency. I also serve as the 

agency’s science advisor. 

I do want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss science, 

science policy and decisionmaking at the EPA, as well as our ongoing efforts to increase and strengthen the scientific integrity of all 

of the decisions made at the agency. 

As the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and 

Development, the EPA’s key scientific body, I cannot emphasize 

enough what a privilege it is to work with so many world-class scientists. Overall, more than 20 percent of our scientists’ and grantees’ publications are considered highly cited. Over 30 percent of 

them are published in high impact journals. Our scientists are active in many prestigious scientific organizations, where they hold 

positions of importance, including the presidency of organizations 

like the American Public Health Association, the Ecological Society 

of America, the Society of Toxicology and the Society for Risk Analysis, to name just a few. EPA’s scientists are contributing to every 

part of environmental science. 

In recent years, we have developed cutting edge, award-winning 

tools and strategies to protect public health, to test chemical effects 

and interactions and to develop ground-breaking reports on many 

issues, including the effects of climate change. So research that is 

conducted by our scientists and grantees provides scientific and 

technical information to support EPA’s mission to protect human 

health and the environment. 

During the past several years, EPA has taken a number of steps 

to maintain a program of sound scientific research to inform agency 

decisions without allowing regulatory objectives to guide or to distort our scientific findings or analyses. These steps include open, 

transparent and peer-reviewed research planing, competitively 

awarded extramural grants, independent and external peer review 

of our scientific studies, publications and analyses, and rigorous 

evaluations of EPA’s research laboratories and centers. Science informs and provides a basis for EPA’s regulatory decisions. 

At the same time, it is very important to recognize that what 

often appears to be a purely scientific question or an assessment 

generally involves both science and science policy considerations. 

Similar to other Federal agencies that are required to produce both 

scientific assessments and make regulatory decisions, EPA views 

the relationship between science, science policy and decisionmaking 

11 

as a continuum. To start, science is conducted by individuals or 

teams working in our laboratories, out in the field or in academic 

institutions across the Country. Their work is reviewed by subject 

matter experts in accordance with EPA’s highly regarded peer review process and our information quality guidelines. These scientists are encouraged to publish and otherwise communicate their 

findings. Our scientists and grantees publish hundreds and hundreds of studies every year. 

Science policy is also an integral aspect of the science to decisionmaking continuum. Because the scientific method encourages critical thinking and frankly, professional disagreement, it does not 

often lend itself to a bright line that decisionmakers can use as a 

reference point. By their very nature, scientific studies involve 

varying degrees of uncertainty. So there is rarely a best answer 

that we can use in decisionmaking. 

Therefore, we rely on science policy processes when we synthesize and assess a range of scientific opinions and data points. 

These science policy decisions may involve filling in knowledge 

gaps with default assumptions, using weight of the evidence approaches to make scientific inferences or choices. The science policy 

work draws on expert insights from multiple scientific disciplines 

and is further strengthened by agency, interagency and public review. 

Decisionmaking is the third aspect of the continuum. Science informs and guides our regulatory decisions, but it cannot be the only 

factor in formulating national policy. Technical feasibility, local autonomy versus Federal control, justice, equity and implementation 

costs are among the considerations that need to be factored into 

EPA’s decisions when that is appropriate under the statutes. These 

other considerations also affect our quality of life and well-being. 

To ensure that we have made good choices to achieve our mission, we use scientific and technical means to monitor the effectiveness of agency decisions, and we update those decisions as appropriate. 

In conclusion, EPA has a proud history of producing science that 

has informed decisions to protect human health and the environment. We are committed to using the best available science and to 

constantly evaluating our science policy choices to achieve our strategic goals and fulfill our mission. From the lab bench to the Administrator’s desk, we follow a science to decisionmaking continuum, in common with other Federal agencies that rely on both 

science and science policy considerations in decisionmaking. 

Thank you to the members of the Committee for this opportunity 

to describe EPA’s critical scientific work. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:] 

12 


85532.001
13 


85532.002
14 


85532.003
15 


85532.004
16 


85532.005
17 


85532.006
18 


85532.007
19 


85532.008
20 


85532.009
21 


85532.010
22 


85532.011
23 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Gray. 

If what you say in your testimony is true, why is it that 889 scientists answered the Union of Concerned Scientists’ study and said 

that they had personally experienced at least one incident of political interference in their work during the past 5 years? Eight hundred and eighty-nine is not a fluke. That is a lot of people. 

Mr. GRAY. I think the first thing we have to do here is be careful 

about those numbers. You are right, that is a large number of responses. But we have to recall that this report provides useful information, it is based on individual opinions and anecdotes that 

really are not a statistically appropriate view of EPA, as is acknowledged in that report. 

But I will say that even that number of responses—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Setting aside the statistics, or percentages 

or any conclusions you might draw, just the raw data point of 889 

scientists who work for your organization who say that their work 

has been interfered with politically—— 

Mr. GRAY. I will say that 889 is a number that is unacceptable 

to me as the head of the agency’s Science and Technology Office 

and as the agency’s science advisor. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Why is it that your testimony doesn’t reference this in any way? And it is not just the Union of Concerned 

Scientists. We had, in the last two hearings, enormous criticism 

about the way in which the science has been manipulated at EPA 

and the way in which folks like OMB have been stuffed into scientific calculations. Even from the very get-go in the IRIS process 

of deciding what chemicals to even look at. And then they get the 

last bite at the apple before it comes out. 

It strikes me that these are fairly serious people who are raising 

this challenge. It is a very frequent and commonly made challenge. 

We are hearing it over and over and over again from different 

quarters. There appears to be significant support for these concerns, when you actually look behind them and look at the data, 

look at what happened and look at the process. 

And yet you act as if none of this was going on. And the Administrator says there is nothing to this but yammering critics. Is that 

really the EPA’s position about the public concern about the integrity of its science, there is nothing going on here but yammering 

critics? 

Mr. GRAY. It is important to recognize that this agency relies 

upon the best available science in making its decisions. In making 

those decisions, it is important to recognize also that science does 

not give us a single or precise answer. We take scientific information, we combine it with our science policy judgments and choices 

and that leads ultimately to a decision. What is very important to 

me and something we are working very hard on that will address 

some of these concerns is that we are very transparent in the way 

that we do things. We want people to understand how it is that we 

arrive at a decision, what are the choices that we have made, so 

that we can have scientific input. We have a very rigorous peer review process that looks at the way in which we have used our 

science. We will have scientific input about the choices, about the 

data, about the information that we have used that can ultimately 

lead to strong decisions by this agency. 

24 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. How are the secret meetings we have just 

heard about this week with OMB, with your science advisors, how 

does that jive with your claim that this is done transparently? 

What could be less transparent than a secret meeting with OMB? 

Mr. GRAY. Transparency is key to the way that we do our assessments. It has always been the case that discussions that we have 

within our agency about science and science policy and that we 

have with the rest of the Federal family about science and science 

policy are kept deliberative to help encourage a free and frank exchange when those scientists are discussing things. 

But the important thing to remember is at the end, in that IRIS 

process—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Is it your—— 

Mr. GRAY [continuing].—strong peer review that says that that 

assessment must pass. There is not room for monkey business, 

there is not room for shenanigans when the outside, independent 

scientists are reviewing our work. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Is it your testimony that the input from 

OMB in these secret meetings is limited to purely scientific discussion? And if so, could you compare for me the qualifications of, say, 

chemists within OMB with the chemists involved in making scientific conclusions for EPA? 

Mr. GRAY. As I discussed in my testimony, the development of 

scientific information in EPA, and IRIS assessments are a very 

clear example of this, include not only scientific considerations but 

science policy considerations. Those are some of the discussions 

that happen within our agency. Those are discussions that happen 

with the other agencies and they are part of moving the scientific 

process forward. 

But at the end, again, the decisions we make are transparently 

described and reviewed by independent, outside scientists. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired, so I will yield to the 

Senator from Tennessee. But I do want to put into the record, we 

just heard the other day from the GAO, which said that the OMB 

interagency reviews lack transparency. Transparency is especially 

important, because agencies providing input include those that 

may be affected by the assessments should they lead to regulatory 

or other actions. 

So you seem to have a bit of a disagreement with other parts of 

Government. 

Senator ALEXANDER. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gray, how many scientists work at the EPA or are employed 

by the EPA? 

Mr. GRAY. We have scientists not only in my office—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. The number. 

Mr. GRAY. It is estimated to be somewhere right around 7,000 

scientists. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Around 7,000. All right. Let’s take an example. The recent ozone decision that was made, how many of these 

scientists would be formally involved in that decisionmaking process, roughly? 

25 

Mr. GRAY. Throughout the agency, multiple tens, up to a hundred or even more. In fact, if we look at the scientific work that 

forms the basis of our assessments, it could be even larger. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So maybe 100 or 200 out of several thousand? 

Mr. GRAY. Correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And the scientific advisory committee, according to law, made a recommendation to the Administrator which 

was only advisory, is that correct, about ozone? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, that is what is required under the Clean Air Act. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And there might be a couple of hundred scientists, roughly speaking, involved in that. The recommendation 

was that the ozone standard should go down to between .06 and 

.07, is that right? 

Mr. GRAY. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And the Administrator decided that it ought 

to be a little higher than that .075? 

Mr. GRAY. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Do you think it is possible that those couple 

hundred scientists would say that that decision represented political interference in their scientific conclusion? 

Mr. GRAY. I think that there may be scientists who would disagree with the choice. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, but if asked the question, that was a 

political appointee making a decision that was different than the 

scientific board, do you think a scientist, one of those 200, might 

have answered that question to say yes, my recommendation was 

interfered with by a political decision? 

Mr. GRAY. I suppose that could happen. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would think so. So what you are saying 

is that maybe 6,800 or 7,000 scientists who work for EPA were not 

a part of that process, that maybe a couple of hundred were. And 

that all of them, if they agreed with the recommendation of the scientific board, could say that some non-science person made a decision which represented political interference, and if they hadn’t 

interfered, in my view, then you would have accepted no standard 

greater than 0.07. 

What conclusions led the Administrator, what factors caused him 

not to accept the recommendation of the scientific advisory board? 

Mr. GRAY. I can’t speak for all of the things that the Administrator considered. He knows that he has the decisionmaking authority and what is required. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you don’t know? 

Mr. GRAY. I know that he takes very seriously the advice that 

he gets from our various advisory committees. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I know. But you don’t know why he didn’t? 

Mr. GRAY. It had to do with how he weighed the science and he 

ultimately—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. But you don’t know why, what the factors 

were. Well, I know what some of the factors were, because I had 

a lot of people in Tennessee saying to me, a lot of county mayors 

saying, we don’t want it changed at all, because we won’t get auto 

jobs in our State because they can’t meet the Clean Air standards, 

that is much too aggressive. So might he have considered the effect 

26 

of a more severe rule on the economy of an area? Might that have 

been a factor? 

Mr. GRAY. No, he would not have done that. By law he is not allowed to consider costs. 

Senator ALEXANDER. What could be another factor? 

Mr. GRAY. The big factor is, going back to the testimony I gave, 

science, there are many different types and kinds of science that 

come together. In the case of ozone, we have clinical studies where 

people have been exposed to ozone, we have epidemiological studies—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. I have about 1 minute left. Let me ask my 

last minute of questions having to do with the question of transparency. Are the recommendations of the scientific advisory committee concerning the ozone decision public? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, they are. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Did the Administrator, in your judgment, 

State publicly why he disagreed with or why he came to a different 

conclusion than the scientific advisory committee? 

Mr. GRAY. There is actually a requirement that the Administrator explain the reasons for a different choice than the committee, and he did that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So we know what the science advisory committee recommended and why? I assume they stated their reasons? 

Mr. GRAY. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And we know why the policymaker made 

his decision and why, and he has a requirement that you say he 

followed in doing that. That sounds to me like what Senators do 

every day. We take advice, we don’t always publicize what our staff 

tells us, I don’t think any of us does that very often. But then we 

say publicly what we are for and why we made the decision and 

then we argue about it, because we might have come to a different 

conclusion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I want to show you a series of charts that indicate what we have been seeing in the press lately and why we 

wanted to hold this hearing. So we will have to move through these 

quickly. White House meddling hobbles the EPA. EPA ignored law 

by using rules on mercury. The court says, EPA drops ball on dangerous chemicals to children. EPA bans staff from discussing issue 

of perchlorate. Bush fights science again and we all lose. Ozone 

rules weakened at Bush’s behest. EPA’s chief ignores his advisors 

again. Bush appointees, not scientists, will have the first say on air 

quality. As toxic clouds roll by, EPA weakens regulation for chemical storage. 

This hearing is extremely important and I couldn’t disagree with 

Senator Alexander more. Now, I respect him very much. But the 

fact is, if you just read the Supreme Court case that dates back to 

an argument that was decided in 2002, 2001, February 2001, written by Justice Scalia, it is supposed to act, Senator, the way we act, 

yes, we listen to science, we listen to the politics, here it is, written 

by Justice Scalia, and it talks about the Clean Air Act. The text 

interpreted in statutory and historical context and with appreciation for its importance to the Clean Air Act as a whole, unambigVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85532.TXT VERN
27 

uously bars cost considerations from the National Air Ambient setting process. And thus ends the matter for us as well as the EPA. 

EPA cannot consider cost in setting Clean Air Act health standards. Period, end of quote. They are not to allow politics into this. 

That is up to you and me. And we could argue and listen to the 

special interests. They are not supposed to. What is happening 

now, and it is a disgrace, and it is dangerous for our people, is that 

politics is front and center of the EPA, and what they have been 

doing, starting with the risk assessment process, the GAO, who 

knows what they are talking about, they have no axe to grind, 

GAO clearly states that the scientists are not being listened to and 

the special interests are invited in and everything is kept secret. 

And this is the problem. 

I want to pick up where Senator Whitehouse left off. The GAO 

has clearly told us what has happened. I have to say, Mr. Gray, 

and I mean, I think you are a very nice man, and this is not a personal attack, but what do you mean when you say it is transparent 

over there? What is your definition of transparent? 

Mr. GRAY. My definition of transparent is that we lay out for the 

consideration of everyone the scientific and other bases of our decisions. 

Senator BOXER. Do you support keeping all the records secret 

from these meetings where GAO says, OMB considers agency’s 

comments on IRIS assessments to be internal, executive branch 

documents that may not be made public. Given the importance of 

IRIS assessments, it is essential that input from all parties be 

made part of the public record. Do you agree with GAO and disagree with OMB? Where do you stand? 

Mr. GRAY. It has always been—] 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree with them? 

Mr. GRAY. I disagree with GAO. It has always been our process 

that discussions within our agency and other agencies are kept deliberative. 

Senator BOXER. OK, you disagree with GAO and you therefore 

agree with OMB, who says that these documents have to be kept 

secret from Senator Alexander’s constituents, from Senator Inhofe’s 

constituents, from mine, from Sheldon’s, from Senator Klobuchar? 

I really need to know, again, you agree with keeping it secret. And 

yet on the other hand, you say you are for transparency. How can 

you possibly say both things? That doesn’t make sense to me. 

Mr. GRAY. Because at the end of the process, we are very transparent about what we have done in that assessment, about what 

science decisions have been made, what science policy decisions 

have been made. And those have been reviewed by independent, 

external scientists. 

Senator BOXER. Now, let me just say this. You have lost all credibility with me. I still like you. But you have lost all credibility. Let 

me read you, how you can sit there and say on the one hand, I am 

for transparency and then say you agree with OMB to keep these 

meetings secret is an outrage. Honestly, be honest, say you don’t 

agree with transparency. But don’t sit here and say you believe in 

transparency. Own up to it. Listen to what the GAO says, and I 

ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to put this in the record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

28 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. A lack of transparency at the OMB interagency 

review process reduces the credibility of EPA’s IRIS assessments. 

Because the agency’s comments and the changes EPA makes in response are treated as internal executive branch documents not subject to release outside the executive branch, the OMB interagency 

reviews occur in what amounts to a black box. A black box. And 

we all know what a black box is. That is top secret, sir. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have two documents, each with three pages, I 

want to ask unanimous consent that they be made a part of the 

record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator INHOFE. The first is from the Center for Consumer Freedom. It is an analysis of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I will 

only read a couple of sentences here. ‘‘UCS embraces and environmental agenda, the office stands at odds with their rigorous scientific analysis it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s 

clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeace of the 

world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a 

consensus.’’ That is one document. 

The other one is, we had put together a list of 12 specific items 

from the Clinton administration on politicized science. This is all 

documented and it is all footnoted and I ask that both of these be 

made a part of the record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They will be, without objection. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Dr. Gray, you used the words, I think, 

single, precise answer. Why is it so important to focus on uncertainty? Is there usually a single answer? It is often demanded of 

you, I want a single, precise answer. What is the difficulty in that? 

Mr. GRAY. That is really an important question, Senator, and it 

is a major source of confusion for a lot of people. The reality is that 

scientific assessments, particularly those that are done at EPA, 

rarely do point to a single best or right answer. There are usually 

a range of plausible answers, all of which are scientifically defensible and could be chosen. 

So this is where the science policy considerations come into play. 

That is why transparency and accurate characterization of that uncertainty is so important. 

Senator INHOFE. Transparency of the uncertainty? 

Mr. GRAY. And transparency of the way in which the data are 

being used, and specific choices that the agency has made. 

Senator INHOFE. Have you experienced any resistance within the 

EPA as it focused on these important issues? In other words, uncertainty in analysis, transparency, and if so, what are the reasons? 

Mr. GRAY. I would say that yes, in some instances there has been 

reluctance on the part of some of the agency to acknowledge its 

debt of uncertainty that is present in many of our assessments and 

the key role that many of our science policy considerations really 

do play. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. The agency 

has had an approach in the past of providing that single answer, 

29 

a point estimate, often an upper bound estimate. There are concerns at the agency about, how do I defend things if I actually acknowledge that the science is uncertain. 

And yet it is really important to recognize, and we have been 

hearing from the outside scientific community that for the credibility of our assessments, we have to do this. We are working to 

advance the way in which we do our assessments, to be more 

transparent, to characterize uncertainty. It is something that is 

very important for the credibility of this organization. 

Senator INHOFE. How has the ORD’s science improved the management of air quality in the United States? 

Mr. GRAY. I think there have been a number of ways. As we have 

already discussed, our science helps to support the decisions that 

are made about ambient air quality standards, and we have been 

important contributors to the scientific base that has led to the recent tightening of the particulate matter standard, the tightening 

of the ozone standard and the proposed tightening of the lead 

standard, for example. 

But we are also out there trying to actually put that science to 

work. We have efforts underway to better measure ozone, for example, across the Country, to feed that into things like the air quality 

index that you can find on the back of USA Today that tells you 

whether the ozone levels should be a concern, depending on what 

you plan to do that day, where you live and what your health status is. 

So I think the agency has provided improved air quality all the 

way from the scientific bench all the way up into the kinds of 

things that you see in USA Today. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. In my opening statement, Dr. 

Gray, I mentioned sound science. This has always been something 

that I have been a stickler for. I recall during the previous Administration, the Clean Air Science Advisory Board, at one time I think 

the board was 21 scientists at that time. Then 19 of them disagreed 

with the conclusion that the Administration came up with. So I 

have always really been concerned about that. Could you, in this 

remaining 30 seconds, explain the EPA science policy, the infrastructure of the science policy? 

Mr. GRAY. Science policy really arises when we are taking tens, 

hundreds, even thousands of individual acts of science that have 

been done, we gather that best available science together and we 

have to use it to inform a decision. When we do that, science policy 

choices that are developed within the agency help to guide choices 

that are made, data that is used, assumptions that are invoked. 

This is done in a process through the agency, through our science 

policy council. It is externally peer-reviewed. It is a way to have a 

consistent science policy approach in the agency. 

Senator INHOFE. And transparency. 

Mr. GRAY. Transparency is very important. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Gray. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse, 

Mr. Gray. I come from Minnesota, a State where we believe in 

science. We brought the world everything from the pacemaker to 

the post-it note, we are the home of the Mayo Clinic and other 

30 

places. In my year and a half here, I have been concerned with 

things that come to my attention. One was when Dr. Julie 

Gerberding, from the Centers for Disease Control, testified before 

this Committee and it turned out later that her testimony had been 

edited while the fires were raging in California, parts were taken 

out about how climate change can lead to more fires on the west 

coast. Everything she said, the White House responded by saying, 

well, it was edited because it wasn’t consistent with some things 

that the Union of Concerned Scientists said. And in fact, we were 

able to show everything she said had been in their report. 

Then I hear about the decision involving Mary Gade. We are 

shocked at the forced resignation of Mary Gade, the head of EPA’s 

Midwest region, which includes Minnesota. She had been fighting 

Dow Chemical, as Senator Whitehouse pointed out, to force them 

to clean up the dioxide contamination in Michigan. She invoked her 

emergency authority to order Dow to clean up three hot spots last 

summer when dioxide levels 50 times the Michigan standard were 

found. 

So my first question is about that. I understand the decisions 

didn’t come from your office, it was the Office of Research and Development. But what seems to me a clear case here, where policy 

was driven by politics, what protections do we need at the EPA to 

make sure that dedicated officials aren’t forced out trying to do 

their jobs? 

Mr. GRAY. In this case, as you said, this is something that I have 

no direct knowledge of, this situation in Region 5. In fact, because 

it is an internal agency personnel matter, it is something that I 

cannot comment on. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But I am asking just in general, then, if 

you don’t want to comment on this specific case, which I think is 

a very troubling case for the Country, but in general, what kind of 

protections are in place, I know we are going to hear from Dr. 

Francesca Grifo from the Union of Concerned Scientists about some 

potential ideas, whistleblower protections for scientists, elevating 

EPA to the Cabinet level, establishing an Inspector General. What 

do you think would be the most important to re-establish the credibility of the agency? 

Mr. GRAY. I actually think the credibility of this agency is enhanced through our use of the best available science and the way 

that we do our work. I will say that it is very important to us, for 

example, in the Office of Research and Development, which I can 

speak to directly, we have no restrictions on things that our scientists can do in interacting with the press or the public or in ways 

in which they can publish their work. We believe that getting the 

best science out into the scientific community is the way to advance 

our knowledge and advance our mission. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But then we were just talking about the 

fact that it is not transparent, that GAO has begged you and 

pushed you to try to make this information transparent. I don’t understand how we are going to know that we have the best science 

when we don’t know what is coming in your door. 

Mr. GRAY. The scientific information that we put out is transparently described. We have a risk characterization handbook that 

31 

was first issued in 2000 that has 11 principles of transparency that 

we are working our best to adhere to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But then why can’t see publicly the information that is coming to you? 

Mr. GRAY. You can see—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The comments that were—— 

Mr. GRAY [continuing].—the information that we have used, the 

choices that we have made, and you can see what the independent 

scientists have said about our use of science—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I just don’t think that is true from what we 

have heard in other hearings about the information coming. But 

specifically you just said that you are making decisions based on 

the best available science. Then could you explain EPA’s decision 

to ignore the unanimous recommendation of its own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee? Why would you do that if you are listening to science and setting a weaker standard for ozone than recommended? 

Mr. GRAY. The Administrator certainly did not ignore the advice 

of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. In fact, he values 

their input, the input from our other advisory committees, from 

other agencies, from the public, very highly. That is the basis of his 

ultimate decision. In fact, in the case of ozone, he agreed with them 

that we needed to tighten that standard. He made a different 

choice, based on his view of the science, of what the appropriate 

level would be. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But isn’t it true that we have 1,700 peerreviewed studies and the unanimous recommendation of your 23 

science advisors to the EPA? That sounds like something he would 

want to listen to. 

Mr. GRAY. Again, all of those studies are exactly why there is no 

single right answer that comes out of that scientific process, why 

the data that are available have to be weighed, they have to be 

analyzed and they have to be considered in their entirety. We get 

advice to help us through that, but ultimately that decision is the 

Administrator’s decision. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Again, 1,700 peer-reviewed studies and 

unanimous recommendations of 23 science advisors, it seems to me 

that that would be certainty. To also add to that, I would think, 

if you have a choice and you have all these scientists, wouldn’t you 

want to go with a standard that is a more cautious standard that 

would protect human health? 

Mr. GRAY. The Administrator has particular guidelines under the 

Clean Air Act for the decision that he makes, that it has to be requisite to protect public health, with an adequate margin of safety 

being neither higher nor lower than necessary. In his judgment, 

that is the level that he set. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am going to ask a few more questions of 

the witness, probably for about 4 minutes, then I will offer anybody 

else the chance to follow on, if they choose, in the second round. 

I just wanted to followup on what you have said, Mr. Gray. You 

indicated that the ozone decision was made by the Administrator, 

based on how he weighed the science and not because of any economic or other considerations, political considerations, which you 

32 

admit would be illegal. It sounds like the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee was unanimous, recommending a range of .06 to 

.07, the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee recommendation was unanimous, recommending a range of .06. What 

other science did you look to to find a different recommendation of 

.075? You said that he has his own view of the science, but his own 

view of the science as informed by what? And why won’t he come 

here? Why has he been unwilling to explain to us his own decisionmaking if it is legitimate? 

Mr. GRAY. I will start with the first part of your question first. 

This is actually a very good example of the way in which uncertainty and science plays an important role in decisions. There is a 

particular study—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are telling me, you have two unanimous, you are telling me and you expect me to believe that two 

unanimous decisions by panels that EPA chose creates scientific 

uncertainty in the mind of EPA? 

Mr. GRAY. They certainly do. Many of them put a lot of weight 

on this particular Adams study, and the finding in one of their 

chamber studies that people exercising moderately for 6 hours and 

exposed to ozone had responses. The author of that paper himself 

commented to the agency that he thought that was an incorrect interpretation of his own work. There is clearly not scientific agreement about how to interpret science. That is my point. The Administrator interpreted the science—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Is there scientific agreement by the people 

that you chose to be the experts, unanimously supported this decision, there is no indication of what science to the contrary the Administrator relied on, none, he made a different decision and he 

won’t come before us and explain it. And frankly, I can’t see a legitimate explanation for that chain of events. This is not some 

alien group that came out from strange places to make this stuff 

up. This is the best scientists in the Country chosen by you, and 

you ignore their recommendation. 

Mr. GRAY. We certainly never ignored the advice of our advisory 

committees, but I will tell you that the preamble to the ozone 

rule—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, they recommend .06 and .07 and you 

do .075, I don’t know how you could have ignored it much more 

than that. 

Mr. GRAY. I think that if you read the preamble to the ozone 

rule, you will see exactly what reasoning went into our decision. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We can’t see what reasoning went into 

that decision, because we can’t get the Administrator to come here 

and explain it. And I strongly suspect it is because there were considerations other than science that dictated, because nobody can 

show me where the science is that would indicate that number. 

And frankly, uncertainty is a lousy explanation for what you have 

said, because it would just as easily justify a number that is five 

points lower than the low range, or .055, as it would justify a number that is five points higher than the high range. In fact, because 

your job is to protect people, you would think that would be the 

way you would err. 

My time is expired. 

33 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Gray, this is a very interesting discussion. Exactly what did the science advisory committee recommend 

on ozone? My colleagues seem to say that they were certain. So exactly what was their precise, certain recommendation? What was 

the level they recommended? 

Mr. GRAY. To my recollection, the board that was just up reflected their recommendation that it would be somewhere in a 

range between 0.06 and 0.07. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Oh, but I thought they were certain about 

it. Do you mean they disagreed between, did they not recommend 

.61? 

Mr. GRAY. They recommended a range. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Did they recommend .062? Did they recommend .063 and .064 and they couldn’t agree on .065 or .066 or 

.067? So they disagreed between .06 and .07. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And what did the Administrator choose? 

Mr. GRAY. The Administrator set the annual standard at .075. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So actually, the scientists who are being 

cited here disagreed among themselves more than the Administrator disagreed with them? Am I correct about that? The .005, 

they had a whole one range of disagreement and he had a half. So 

we are saying over here that these scientists have a certain agreement and they can’t even agree between .06 and .07, he goes to 

.075. So in my opinion, they disagreed more among themselves 

than he disagreed with them. Now, who has the judgment under 

the law to make the decision about ozone, based on an adequate 

margin of safety requisite to protect public health? 

Mr. GRAY. That responsibility is the Administrator of EPA. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Is that exclusively his decision? 

Mr. GRAY. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Is the scientific advisory committee, which 

couldn’t agree among itself about what to do, are they purely advisory in their capacity? 

Mr. GRAY. They are advisory. We take their advice very, very seriously. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But they are advisory in their capacity. Are 

their recommendations public? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, they are. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So any of us can read their recommendations, is that correct? 

Mr. GRAY. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And did you not say earlier that the Administrator, who has the exclusive authority to make this decision and 

whose decision was closer to the top range of this committee than 

the top range was to the low range of the committee, did he State 

in his opinions why he made his decision at .075? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, he is required by law to do that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. He is required by law to do that? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So the only area, it seems to me, of objection here is that there was an interagency review of this decision. 

Was there such a review? 

34 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, under an executive order dating back to 1993, 

there is interagency review. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And that information, what went on there 

isn’t public? Is that correct? 

Mr. GRAY. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. We had a Republican conference the other 

day, all the Republican Senators talking about climate change. The 

Democrats do the same. Actually we do that about every lunch. 

They are not public. Now, they are not our decisions. And when we 

go out and talk, these are internal discussions. And I assume that 

an internal discussion in the executive branch would be like an internal discussion among our offices, among our Senators. And I 

don’t think we are going to haul a camera into the Democratic Policy Committee meeting, or in the Republican Policy Committee 

meeting. 

So you are saying that the scientists’ recommendations are public; the Administrator’s recommendation is public, we can read it; 

and he has the exclusive authority to make the decision. And the 

way I read it, he disagreed more with the top range of the scientists’ group than the bottom range of the scientists’ group did. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Comparing EPA to us doesn’t even make any 

sense whatsoever. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I compared the interagency—— 

Senator BOXER. If I might say, they, according to Justice Scalia, 

cannot consider all these other things that we can consider. And 

again, we put it in the record, you are not allowed to, you have to 

go protect the health of the people, No. 1. 

Now, you sir, your continuous claim that there is transparency 

at the EPA in setting protective health standards for dangerous 

pollutants is ludicrous. Why do I say that? The GAO approved it, 

they said the OMB’s secret policy that you embrace here today, 

which is shocking from someone at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, is the equivalent of putting the information into a black 

box. That is not me saying it, that is not the Chairman saying it, 

it is the GAO saying it after a very, I think, very important review. 

Two, your stated view that costs and other factors should be considered flies in the face again of the Supreme Court decision. So 

this is Alice in Wonderland. The facts are the facts are the facts. 

There is no transparency on ozone. My understanding, and my 

staff can correct me if I am wrong, they didn’t follow the science. 

They went over the level that any scientist recommended. Outrageous on its face. 

Now, do you know why Administrator Johnson could not be here 

today? 

Mr. GRAY. I don’t know. I know that he has been out of work and 

I think he is back. 

Senator BOXER. He is back, but he couldn’t come up here today? 

Mr. GRAY. Correct. 

Senator BOXER. Do you know why he will not give us any date 

to explain his ozone decision, the decision that we have all asked 

you about today? Do you know why he couldn’t give us any date? 

Mr. GRAY. I don’t know that. I could get that information for you. 

35 

Senator BOXER. Good. Thank you. There are serious charges that 

the White House interfered with setting the standard. We want the 

head of the EPA up here to explain it. Do you know why we have 

yet to receive any e-mails that were promised to me and this Committee? We were supposed to get these e-mails that went back and 

forth between the White House and the EPA regarding the California waiver? We were promised that we would get those e-mails 

in February. Do you know why we have yet to receive those emails? 

Mr. GRAY. I don’t know. 

Senator BOXER. Will you please find out why? Will you please go 

back and ask the question and would you please send me a letter 

as to why we cannot get these? 

Mr. GRAY. I can do that. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Because you want to talk about transparency, I 

will tell you, many States in the Union are very angry at what this 

Administration did. And for the first time, never granting a waiver 

to California, which impacts 19 other States, so we can begin cleaning up our air and doing what the Supreme Court said we have to 

do under the Clean Air Act, which is fight global warming. And I 

have to tell you, what is going on at this Administration is so dangerous, it is not a game. We have had a stall for seven and a half 

years about doing anything on global warming. We have had a 

change that is now trying to be institutionalized where you shut 

the scientists back in a room. And there is no transparency here. 

We don’t know what is going on in those secret meetings, I say to 

my friend from Tennessee, because they are in a black box. 

So it is very, very troubling and I want to thank Senator 

Whitehouse for his leadership. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

Sir, I just wanted to followup a little bit on a hearing we had just 

yesterday on perchlorate. And in your testimony, you State that in 

order to meet our statutory requirements, we often cannot wait for 

independent scientific findings to converge on a solution. This 

would cause long delays in environmental decisionmaking. 

How would you say this statement fits in with the hearing we 

held yesterday to examine why the EPA has still not issued a 

standard for perchlorate decades after we became aware that it 

was a toxic chemical with developmental impacts on pregnant 

women and children? 

Mr. GRAY. Thank you. First, I need to make a response to Senator Boxer. I want to make clear that under the Clean Air Act, 

there are no consideration of cost that go into the setting of a National Ambient Air Quality standard, and the Administrator is very 

clear about that, when that decision is made. 

To your point, perchlorate is something that we take very seriously. We are moving and I know that you had testimony yesterday 

from the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water that we 

are moving to have a decision on perchlorate by the end of this 

year. I will tell you that we in the Office of Research and Development are working very hard to make sure that the Office of Water 

is able to meet their requirement under the Safe Drinking Water 

36 

Act that says we must use the best available science. And we are 

looking at the best available science to clean—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How long has it been since we knew that 

this was a risk? 

Mr. GRAY. We are using things like physiologically based pharmacokinetic models to allow us to look at the potential susceptibility of different life stages, including infants and children. That 

is something that is very important to the Office of Water ultimately making a sound scientific decision. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The statements that you have made in your 

testimony about how we cannot wait for independent scientific 

findings to converge on a solution, because it would cause long 

delays in environmental decisionmaking. How does this fit also 

with the reluctance of the EPA to support concrete action on greenhouse gas emissions, so that they had to have courts push them 

into it? To me, that statement isn’t completely with odds in terms 

of how the EPA has been handling greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. GRAY. The point of that statement is that scientific information rarely in fact, I will say never converges on a single point, a 

single answer. What we do as an agency is do our assessments 

with the best science we have available to us at the time to help 

inform the various decisions we have to make. We try to reflect the 

uncertainty in that to make sure that people know what we know 

and what we don’t know, where more research will help us to understand—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you think some of the best science available comes from the Annapolis Center? I notice you were on their 

board. 

Mr. GRAY. I was on their board many years ago, yes, I was. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. From 1995 to 2000. They just gave an 

award to Senator Inhofe. I think they have argued that, they have 

argued against the idea that global warming is a result of burning 

fossil fuels. Is that something that goes into your thinking? 

Mr. GRAY. I certainly haven’t been part of that organization, as 

you said, for the last 8 years. I don’t know what informs their decisions. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. My concern here is not to bring up something that you may not consider relevant, but when you have a situation where we are basically, things are in a black box and we 

can’t get to the bottom of what is going on with the EPA’s decisionmaking and they are making decisions that are contrary to scientific recommendations on ozone, the courts are having to push 

them into act, you have to look at where is the head coming from, 

where is the mind set coming from. And so you have to look at the 

outside forces, because we cannot figure out, when your own scientists are telling you to move on this and Congress is trying to 

push as hard as we can with the resources we have to move on 

this, why you haven’t. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank the witness for his testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put two things in 

the record, if I might. 

First of all, I have to do this, as a privilege of the Chairman of 

the Committee. When Mr. Gray says that, when it comes to clean 

air, only science, sir, I would have to call this, I am not saying you 

37 

are a liar, I am not saying that, but I am saying that statement 

is a big lie. Why do I say that? Because the last two things that 

you did, ozone, which Senator Alexander has gone over, and soot, 

the fine particulate matter, and I would put in the record the fact 

that your scientific ozone review panel said, it is the Committee’s 

consensus, scientific opinion, that your decision to set the primary 

ozone standard above the range fails to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air that you ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals, including sensitive populations, that is from 

your scientists, and that is on ozone and fine particulate matter. 

Here is what your scientists said. ‘‘There is clear and convincing 

scientific evidence that significant adverse human health effects 

occur at the retained standard which does not provide an adequate 

margin of safety requisite to protect the public health.’’ And that 

is when you didn’t go to 13 or 14 micrograms, you kept it at 15. 

Now, these are two specific examples. And for you to sit here and 

say that you follow the law. Listen, you have lost every lawsuit, I 

count 11 major lawsuits where the most conservative courts have 

found that you are not protecting the public health. So I am putting these documents into the record. And the other thing I am 

putting into the record is the dictionary definition of transparency, 

which says, literally understood or characterized by visibility or accessibility of information, especially concerning business practices. 

So I think that your testimony here today, you have tried to defend 

the indefensible. And you have failed as far as this Senator is concerned. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection, the documents will be 

made a matter of record. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Then I would like to add something to the record in pursuit of 

transparency. I would like to ask consent to put into the record the 

recommendations of the scientific committee, the Clean Air Science 

Advisory Committee that recommended the ozone standard of .060 

to .070. Then I would like to put into the record the response of 

the Administrator of the EPA, who has explained his readings, 

which under the law, he has the sole judgment to make, based on 

criteria in allowing an adequate margin of safety that are requisite 

to protect public health. 

And I would like to suggest to the Senator from California that 

if she wants to change that, she should change the law. Because 

the law says that Section 109 of the Clean Air Act gives him the 

exclusive decisionmaking, and he agreed with the top range of his 

scientific advisors, more than the bottom range of the scientific advisors agreed with the top range. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Those documents will also be made a matter of record. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And Senator Whitehouse, I just want to put 

into the record as well a list of organizations that supported the 

range of .06 to .07, and in fact supported the .06 number, that 

would be the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85532.TXT VERN
38 

ican College of Crest Physicians, the American College of Preventative Medicine, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the American Heart Association, the American 

Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the American 

Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the 

American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 

America, the National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, the National Association of City and County Health 

Officials, the Physicians for Social Responsibility and Trust for 

America’s Health. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That also will be made a matter of record, 

without objection. 

[The referenced material follows:] 

39 


85532.051
40 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We appreciate the testimony of Mr. Gray, 

and he is excused. 

Would the next panel please come forward? 

I want to thank this distinguished panel for being here today. 

The manner in which we proceed will be right across the panel, beginning with Dr. Grifo. We will allow 5 minutes each for your oral 

testimony, so it may be necessary for you to summarize what you 

have submitted in writing in order to fall within that timeframe. 

If you hear a noise like that, it means that your time is up and 

I would appreciate it if you would wrap it up. 

Dr. Grifo, please. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCESCA GRIFO, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PROGRAM, UNION OF 

CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Ms. GRIFO. Good morning. My name, as you said, is Francesca 

Grifo, and I am a senior scientist and the Director of the Scientific 

Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading 

science-based non-profit working for a healthy environment and a 

safer world. 

Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Boxer and Senator Alexander, and members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to 

speak this morning about the problem of political interference in 

the work of Federal scientists. I thank the Committee for your 

oversight and I strongly urge you to keep the pressure on. The next 

8 months promises to be filled with additional abuses of science 

that, while last-minute in their implementation, are sure to be 

long-lasting in their consequences. 

While I am sure we can all agree that the Environmental Protection Agency has a skilled and dedicated work force, our research, 

based on survey responses from 1,586 scientists, combined with essays from 850 of these scientists, forces us to conclude that this is 

an agency in crisis. Hundreds of EPA scientists reported interference on issues ranging from mercury pollution to climate 

change. 

You might note that no rank and file EPA scientist is speaking 

today, despite significant efforts by the Committee. Unfortunately, 

612 EPA scientists responded that they fear retaliation for openly 

expressing concerns about their agency’s mission-driven work, work 

that is compromised by the influence of political appointees at EPA 

or other agencies, as well as non-governmental interests. 

This influence takes the following forms: scientists told to exclude or alter technical information or to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information; selective or incomplete use of 

data; edits that change the meaning of scientific findings; disappearance or unusual delay in the release of scientific information; statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’ findings; and suppression of scientists’ ability to speak freely to other 

scientists, the news media and the public. 

Eight hundred and eighty-nine scientists personally reported experiencing, or reported personally experiencing one of these events 

in the last 5 years. Of these, 234 reported experiencing 6 or more 

such incidents. Because of such interference, EPA has failed, for 

example, to sufficiently tighten standards for key air pollutants, 

41 

such as ozone, soot and mercury, resulting in millions of Americans 

breathing unhealthy air, and has also compromised the quality and 

quantity of publicly available toxicological information, leaving 

families in the dark about what chemical dangers are in their 

neighborhoods. 

By suppressing, distorting and manipulating science, the White 

House has consistently attempted to subvert the 12 pieces of legislation that authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health and the environment, and in so doing, has made 

an end run around the legislative branch. Furthermore, by creating 

systemic changes in the way the EPA creates and utilizes scientific 

information, the Administration has reduced the capacity of the executive branch to meet complex environmental and public health 

challenges. 

For example, just 2 weeks ago, we learned that agencies who 

would be liable for costly cleanups are now given expanded over 

EPA’s scientific assessments of chemical toxicity. Scientific advisory committees, which used to have critical roles at the beginning 

of their quality assessments, now have a reduced role much later 

in the rulemaking process. 

Fortunately, this is not a problem without a solution. A suite of 

reforms are detailed in our report, Interference At The EPA. But 

here are a few, selected few. Last year, both the House and Senate 

overwhelming approved bipartisan legislation to strengthen whistleblower protections for Federal employees. It is crucial that the 

final version of the whistleblower bill now being negotiated by the 

two chambers contain specific protections for scientists who expose 

efforts to suppress or alter Federal research, similar to those protections in the House-passed version of the bill. 

To ensure the work of Federal scientists will not be subject to political manipulation, the EPA should increase openness in the decisionmaking process to expose manipulation. Specifically, the expanded reach of the Office of Management and Budget must be 

pushed back. If research results in their application to the creation 

of public protections are made public before they drop into the 

black hole, as GAO has put it, of OMB, attempts to distort science 

to support political goals will be exposed. 

EPA should adopt media, communication and scientific publication policies across the whole agency that ensure taxpayer-funded 

scientific research is accessible to Congress and the public and the 

media and so on. The GAO has more work to do. There are many 

changes that have become embedded in the agency that if not exposed will continue to harm scientific integrity. 

Finally, there is one action that can and must happen immediately. Administrator Johnson should send a clear message to all 

political appointees that he will not tolerate attempts to alter or 

suppress Federal research. Just as William Ruckelshaus did shortly after appearing before this Committee 25 years ago in 1983, Administrator Johnson should pledge to operate EPA in a fishbowl. 

The original memo, still in the history section of EPA’s website, 

should be moved to its home page. This memo sets a standard for 

an agency so open that it earned the trust of the American people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grifo follows:] 

42 


85532.012
43 


85532.013
44 


85532.014
45 


85532.015
46 


85532.016
47 


85532.017
48 


85532.018
49 


85532.019
50 


85532.020
51 


85532.021
52 


85532.022
53 


85532.023
54 


85532.024
55 


85532.025
56 


85532.026
57 


85532.027
58 


85532.028
59 


85532.029
60 


85532.030
61 


85532.031
62 


85532.032
63 


85532.033
64 


85532.034
65 


85532.035
66 


85532.036
67 


85532.037
68 


85532.038
69 


85532.039
70 


85532.102
71 


85532.103
72 


85532.104
73 


85532.105
74 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

I would like to just take a moment before we go to Dr. Gilman. 

I have been asked to add to the record, the growing record of this 

hearing, an article from the Washington Post that discusses the 

Center for Consumer Freedom, which was just used as a source by 

Ranking Member Inhofe, which indicates that the Center for Consumer Freedom was founded about 10 years ago with tobacco company money, Philip Morris, USA, Inc., pledge about $600,000, most 

of the feed money for this group in 1995. Its founder has declined 

to give specifics about who funds the Center for Consumer Freedom 

now. 

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has 

challenged the Center for Consumer Freedom on grounds that its 

founder has used the Center to funnel money to himself and his 

company, a violation of Federal tax law that bars companies or individuals from running a non-profit for their private benefit. And 

the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has also 

challenged the group’s 501(c)(3) status on grounds that it was established solely to promote the causes of restaurants and food producers, not consumers. Its activities, the organization said, are ‘‘not 

remotely charitable.’’ So without objection, that will be made a 

matter of record as well. 

[The referenced material follows:] 

75 


85532.094
76 


85532.095
77 


85532.096
78 


85532.097
79 


85532.098
80 


85532.099
81 


85532.100
82 


85532.101
83 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Gilman. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL GILMAN, PH.D., CHIEF 

SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER, COVANTA ENERGY 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, members of the 

Committee, for the opportunity to be here. 

I am going to start by adding to our list of headlines in order to 

make a point, this one from a journal called Pest Control: ‘‘EPA has 

become too politicized in its actions, too eager to pursue narrow political goals and too willing to ignore congressional intent.’’ One 

from Resources for the Future: ‘‘EPA also should reinstitute and 

strengthen the internal scientific review process to ensure transparency, accountability for scientific uncertainty and improve its 

analytical base for its political decisions.’’ 

One from USA Today, ‘‘At least a dozen former EPA officials who 

played roles in setting pesticide policy now work as industry consultants. The EPA has become the farm team for the pesticide 

lobby,’’ it quotes an observer as saying. One from the Chattanooga 

Free Press, ‘‘In a scathing opinion the court stated the EPA publicly committed a conclusion before research had begun adjusted 

scientific procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency’s 

public conclusion.’’ One from the Orlando Sentinel, ‘‘Science is as 

politicized in America as it was in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and EPA is a prime example.’’ 

One from Portland Press Herald, ‘‘For years the Federal Government has known power plants produce mercury. It knows how 

technology could be used to reduce that pollution, but the EPA’s efforts to regulate toxic metal has been slowed by industry lobbyists 

and all of their allies in Congress.’’ 

I want to make the point that these headlines all came prior to 

the current Administration and pertain to the previous Administration. I make that point simply because science is the battleground 

today, science supporting the policy decisions at the EPA. It is 

where the things are being fought out that really are about the economics, the predispositions of our different constituent groups that 

speak to you in the Congress and people at the EPA. 

I don’t say it to say who is more guilty in the process of using 

science either correctly or incorrectly, only to make the point that 

science is the battleground today, and that is why this hearing is 

so important. In my statement I say the keys to making sure the 

process of using the science and the process of making policy with 

the science rests on the very things you have already touched on: 

a quality control process for that science; transparency for the 

science as the Chair has stated; and a very aggressive peer-review 

process. 

I would only note that on a number of those fronts, the agency 

has come quite a long way. In the area of peer review, which has 

long been a sore point, Dr. Genny Matanowski said in a 2002 hearing before the Science Committee that really, the agency sort of 

reached a peak in terms of the practice of peer review. At that 

same time, of the 859 scientific products of the agency, it sent 750 

to review and 91 percent of those were by outside reviewers. I had, 

while at EPA, the opportunity to testify on peer review. I testified 

alongside folks from the Corps of Engineers. At the time, they were 

84 

trying to see if they could submit a single study in a given year 

to outside external review. 

So that is to say that the fundamentals of good science and good 

science policy have been growing at the agency through time. They 

continue to need to be emphasized. I welcome the Committee’s effort to do that here today and I am happy to take any questions 

you have. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Gilman. 

Dr. MICHAELS. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MICHAELS, PH.D., MPH, RESEARCH 

PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, THE 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. MICHAELS. Good morning. My name is David Michaels. I am 

Associate Chairman of the Department of Environment and Occupational Health at the George Washington University School of 

Public Health. 

Previously, I served as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health, responsible for protecting the health 

of workers, communities and environments around the Nation’s nuclear weapons complex. I am also the author of ‘‘Doubt is their 

Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your 

Health,’’ which has just been published this week by Oxford University Press, in which I detail how industry and the Bush administration manufacture scientific uncertainty in order to prevent regulation. In fact, I discuss the Center for Consumer Freedom and 

the Annapolis Center, and the tobacco industry’s foundation of all 

that that we are discussing today. 

I would like to take a moment out of my prepared testimony to 

note that my testimony about the Bush administration does not 

apply to Dr. Paul Gilman, who as Assistant EPA Administrator for 

Research and Development defended the integrity of EPA’s science 

and scientists from some of the efforts I will be describing today. 

I am honored to be on the panel with him. 

There are three major components of the Administration’s antiscience agenda. The first is the widespread practice of ignoring the 

advice of scientific experts. Environmental issues are very complex 

and the Government needs the wisdom and advice of the Nation’s 

best scientists. For decades, the advisory system has provided this 

wisdom. The Bush administration has rejected this approach by the 

stacking advisory panels, by dropping renowned scientists and replacing them with scientists whose job it is to defend polluters or 

just by simply ignoring the advice of these august panels. 

One of our most important sources for scientific advice is 

CASAC, which, as we have discussed, consists of preeminent scientists appointed by the Administrator of EPA. In a series of decisions without historical precedent, the Administrator has ignored 

CASAC’s advice on lead and pollution. Not considered and rejected, 

but the evidence is ignored. Senators, I want to be very clear that 

I am not talking about what might be called academic disputes 

among scientists. In epidemiology, we remind our students that 

statistics are people with the tears washed off. Exposure to air polVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85532.TXT VERN
85 

lutants kills thousands of Americans every year. EPA regulations 

are literally life or death decisions. 

The second anti-science component of the Bush administration’s 

regulatory philosophy is its predilection to manufacture uncertainty: manipulating, distorting or hiding scientific evidence because this evidence is the most important driver of public policy decisions around environmental health. Books have been written 

about the lengths to which the Administration has gone to deny the 

scientific evidence or confuse the public about global warming. As 

late as June 2006, President Bush was still denying the significant 

role of human activity in global climate change. The scientific evidence is now so powerful and the popular acceptance of this evidence is so widespread, that it is no longer credible to manufacture 

uncertainty about the causes of global warming. 

So now the White House has moved on to manufacture uncertainty about the public health impacts of severe climate change. 

This is a strategic retreat with the same objective: delay steps to 

reduce our use of fossil fuels. Call it Climate Change Manufactured 

Uncertainty 2.0. 

Christie Todd Whitman, the first head of the EPA under President Bush, once said ‘‘The absence of certainty is not an excuse to 

do nothing.’’ But for this Administration, right now, it is. 

A basic tenet of public health is that decisions must be made on 

the basis of the best available evidence. We can’t afford to wait 

until scientific certainty is reached, because in many cases, it cannot and will not be reached. 

The third component is what I call institutionalizing uncertainty. 

Since coming to power in 2001, this Administration has attempted 

to radically alter the way scientific information is produced, communicated, analyzed, synthesized and acted upon by Federal agencies. I have no doubt that the objective of these measures is to limit 

the ability of future administrations to protect the public health 

and environment. 

Last week you heard testimony on the EPA’s IRIS program. I 

won’t go into all the details, but I think your characterization of 

OMB as a black box is too generous. I think black hole may be a 

better phrase for it. IRIS assessments go in there and they do not 

go out. 

The Administration now is proposing a policy that gives agencies 

like the Department of Defense, who clearly oppose more protective 

standards, the opportunity to challenge EPA science in secrecy. We 

would never permit a process that would allow the EPA, in secret, 

to delay military activities needed to protect our Nation. How can 

we permit a system in which the Pentagon, in secret, has the ability to block EPA efforts to protect human health and the environment? 

This is only the most recent example of several unfortunate efforts by the White House to institutionalize uncertainty that I go 

that through in the book and on our website, http:// 

www.defendingscience.org/. 

Thanks to our regulatory agencies, we have made great progress 

in reducing toxic exposures and protecting our health. But we must 

not stop. Much remains to be done. In the not too distant future, 

I am hopeful that our political leadership responsible or protecting 

86 

the public health and environment will be committed to the independent scientific evaluation of the risks posed by air pollutants 

and toxic chemicals. When this happens, we will surely view the 

activities of the current Administration with the same dismay and 

outrage with which we now look back on the deceits of the tobacco 

industry. But by then, the price already paid in preventable illness 

and premature deaths, in destroyed habitats and extinct species, 

will have been enormous. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

87 


85532.106
88 


85532.107
89 


85532.108
90 


85532.109
91 


85532.110
92 


85532.111
93 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Michaels. We are glad you 

could be with us. 

Dr. THURSTON. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. THURSTON, SC.D., PROFESSOR OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, NELSON INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 

Mr. THURSTON. I am George Thurston, a tenured professor of environmental medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. At NYU I 

conduct the health effects research that we are discussing here 

today. 

Despite progress since the Clean Air Act was enacted by you, the 

Congress, Americans are still suffering from the adverse health effects of air pollution. The adverse health consequences of breathing 

air pollution are severe and well-documented in the published medical and scientific literature. 

Over the past few decades, medical researchers examining air 

pollution and public health, including myself, have shown that ambient air pollution is associated with a host of serious human 

health effects, including asthma attacks, heart attacks, hospital admissions, adverse birth outcomes and premature death. 

The Clean Air Act provides a clear process for the U.S. EPA to 

establish air quality standards. The EPA must set the primary or 

health base standard NAAQS at a level requisite to protect public 

health with an adequate margin of safety. Unfortunately, the EPA 

has failed to follow the latest scientific knowledge and to thereby 

establish a NAAQS, a National Air Quality Standard, for ozone or 

particulate matter, that meets this congressional requirement. 

In particular, the EPA Administrator has failed to heed the expressed recommendation of his scientific advisors, CASAC, and the 

solid recommendation of the mainstream medical and public health 

community as required by the Clean Air Act. Now, Senator Alexander in his comments seems to dismiss this process as just between a committee that is set up by the EPA Administrator and 

his staff, so they had a little disagreement. But actually, this is all 

stipulated that the Administrator must listen to CASAC by the 

Congress. 

So when the Administrator ignores CASAC, he is not just ignoring some committee, he is ignoring the Congress. He is ignoring the 

law of the land, the Clean Air Act. It is all stipulated right there 

what he has to do and he hasn’t done it. My testimony today focuses primarily on the argument the Administrator made for questioning and rejecting the latest scientific knowledge, and those 

words are in the law, in the most recent case of ozone. 

In rejecting CASAC’s advice to adopt an ozone standard within 

the range of 60 to 70 ppb, the Administrator argued that uncertainty over the research prevented him from following the guidance 

of CASAC. Indeed, from promulgating a standard in the Federal 

Register the Administrator referred to uncertainty or uncertainties 

more than 150 times, 172 by my count. 

In the face of a strong scientific consensus, it is just untenable 

to cite uncertainty as a rationale for failing to promulgate a tighter 

standard. There are two basic problems with the Administration’s 

94 

uncertainty argument for choosing a standard less stringent than 

recommended by CASAC. First, in the face of uncertainty, the 

Clean Air Act stipulates that the Administrator must choose a 

more stringent standard to ensure a margin of safety. 

Also, EPA’s uncertainty claims failed to address uncertainties 

that favor a more protective standard. For instance, controlled 

human exposure studies typically use healthy young adults as test 

subjects. This creates uncertainty about what the results would be 

on more vulnerable populations, such as infants, children or people 

with severe respiratory disease, such as asthma, simply because we 

cannot and should not use them as test subjects in experiments. 

But the fact is, we know that if we were to do such experiments, 

they would have effects at much lower levels than the subjects we 

use. 

Second, the Administration has apparently confused scientific 

uncertainty regarding the sizes of the pollution health effects or 

confidence intervals, the confidence intervals around the health estimates. In other words, when a scientist talks about uncertainty 

of effect, they are saying, well, it could be this big or it could be 

this big, it is in this range. But the Administrator is confusing uncertainty with doubt. There is no doubt that there are adverse 

health effects occurring below 75 ppb, or .075 ppm. There just isn’t. 

There is uncertainty about the size of those effects. The Administrator plays up this uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty. But I 

think that is a mis-use or a misunderstanding of the word uncertainty. 

As a result of the Administrator’s intransigence, CASAC has in 

recent years undertaken an unprecedented number of letters to the 

EPA objecting to the Administrator’s actions that did not reflect 

their advice. So what are the impacts? We have the present annual 

air PM 2.5 standard, and the newly adopted 8-hour average ozone 

standard that failed to fully protect the public from the increased 

risk of asthma attack, heart attack, stroke, lung cancer and premature death. Since they failed to protect the public from pollution 

at levels demonstrated to cause harm, they certainly failed to provide a margin of safety as unequivocally required by the Clean Air 

Act. 

Overall, it is vital that the Administrator give proper deference 

to CASAC’s advice in the air quality standard setting process and 

thereby apply sound science, which Senator Inhofe and I apparently agree on, that we need to apply sound science, and that is 

defined by the law as CASAC. Only in this manner can Congress’ 

intent of the Clean Air Act be fulfilled and the health of the public 

be protected. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thurston follows:] 

95 


85532.040
96 


85532.041
97 


85532.042
98 


85532.043
99 


85532.044
100 


85532.112
101 


85532.113
102 


85532.114
103 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Thurston. 

Dr. MCCLELLAN. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER O. MCCLELLAN, ADVISOR, TOXICOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Good morning, Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to present my views on the use 

of science in environmental regulatory decisionmaking. 

I am going to focus on two issues that have received considerable 

attention this morning, the PM standard and the ozone standard. 

I do ask that my comments be entered into the record as though 

read in their entirety. 

The testimony I offer today draws on my experience serving on 

more than 60 major scientific advisory committees for 8 agencies 

going back to President Johnson and including every President 

from then up to the present time. This includes service on many 

EPA scientific advisory committees from the origin of the agency to 

the present time, including chairing CASAC. 

I want to preface my remarks today by emphasizing a fact that 

is frequently ignored. Scientists understand science. However, scientists also have personal opinions, including how low is low 

enough in setting standards. 

Let’s talk first about the PM standard. I served on that panel. 

And as required by law, the Administrator put forth a proposal. 

And in that proposal, he you suggested a 24-hour averaging time 

standards in the range of 25 to 65 micrograms per cubic meter, and 

an annual standard in the range of 12 to 15 micrograms per cubic 

meter. 

The CASAC particulate matter panel recommended a 24 hour 

standard in the range of 30 to 35 and an annual standard be set 

at 13 to 14 micrograms per cubic meter. I disagreed with the majority and offered on dissenting view. I took strong exception to the 

view that the science would support a 14 microgram per cubic 

meter standard and not support a 15 microgram per cubic meter 

standard. 

Ultimately, Administrator Johnson issued a final rule. He made 

a drastic reduction in the 24 hour averaging time standard from 65 

to 35 micrograms per cubic meter and he retained the annual 

standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter. In my opinion, he 

made a reasonable policy choice from among an array of acceptable 

science-based options. I was disappointed that some chose to characterize his decision as being a political decision. I think he did follow the science. 

Let me turn to the issue of the ozone standard. And again, there 

was considerable debate and contentiousness. Throughout the review, there was debate over the numerical level of the revised 

standard. In my opinion, much of that debate was premature and 

it focused on the desire of various parties to lower the standard 

even before the review of the science was complete. This resulted 

in a blurring of the boundary between the role of science and judgment in setting the standard. We have already heard reference to 

the specific numbers and the ultimate setting of the standard at 

104 

0.075 ppm. I think that was a reasonable policy decision from 

among an array of acceptable science-based options. 

In my opinion, the CASAC ozone panel moved from the science 

arena into the policy arena in advocating an upper bright line 

value of 0.070 ppm for the primary standard. That value represented the personal judgment of the ozone panel members, not 

just their interpretation of the science. As we have already heard, 

the Administrator has the exclusive responsibility and authority for 

setting the standards. 

The law purposefully calls for a Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, and I underscore advisory. It does not call for a clean 

air standard setting committee. I commend to everyone a reading 

of the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Breyer, when he concurred 

with the majority in saying that economics should not be considered in setting the standard. But he also gave some very good advice in terms of a common-sense approach to deciding what risks 

are acceptable in the world in which we live and for deciding how 

low is low enough in setting the standards. 

I think that the ozone panel was offering their collective opinion 

as to the level of the standard and they went beyond simply offering a scientific opinion. I think that it is humbling for scientists to 

acknowledge the distinction between science and personal policy 

preferences. But in fact, we as scientists must do that and accept 

the fact that at some point the science stops and then a policy decision must be made informed by that science. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClellan follows:] 

105 


85532.052
106 


85532.053
107 


85532.054
108 


85532.055
109 


85532.056
110 


85532.057
111 


85532.058
112 


85532.059
113 


85532.060
114 


85532.061
115 


85532.062
116 


85532.063
117 


85532.115
118 


85532.116
119 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. McClellan. 

Dr. RHOMBERG. 

STATEMENT OF LORENZ R. RHOMBERG, PH.D., 

PRINCIPAL, GRADIENT CORPORATION 

Mr. RHOMBERG. Thank you for the opportunity to address the 

Committee. I am Dr. Lorenz Rhomberg, a Principal at Gradient 

Corporation, an environmental consulting firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

I have been asked to address the use of science in the development of guidance for conducting risk assessments for children’s exposures. In 2003, EPA came out with its draft supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibility from early life exposures to carcinogens and made that draft available for public comment. I was 

commissioned by a trade association to evaluate the scientific basis 

of the EPA’s drafts and to make oral public comments at the SAB 

meeting in May 2003 at which that draft was reviewed. My comments were supportive of the EPA draft on some items, but also 

noted that what appeared to be technically inappropriate formulas 

that were used in some cases for calculating the observed differences in sensitivity between young animals and adults in chemical bioassay experience. 

I suggested alternative approaches to this calculation. In the end, 

when the final revised document was published by EPA, my suggestions had been essentially applied, resulting, in my view, in a 

sounder scientific basis for the EPA policy decisions that resulted. 

But in that process, my comments, like those of the other public 

commenters, was not simply urging what the policy ought to be in 

the end, what the standard should be or what the final decision 

should be. Instead, it was a technical comment on how the available scientific information should be interpreted and brought to 

bear. My comments, as others, pulled out the scientific evidence to 

support those points so they could be debated. 

But even with that scientific debate that occurred, there was no 

single best or correct scientific answer to the questions at hand 

that emerged in that debate, and no single answer was recommended by the SAB, because it couldn’t be. The SAB members 

and later the EPA policy formulators that drew on those recommendations had to arrive at a policy about relative sensitivity 

assumptions to be applied to other chemicals, not the ones that 

were being examined in the SAB meeting. That policy had to be 

supported as well as possible by scientific understanding of the 

data at hand. That is, a policy guided by science but not, because 

it is rarely possible to do so, identified by science. 

In the end, it is the collective judgment of knowledgeable and appropriately trained people, the whole span of the mainstream opinion of the field as a whole, that is what science has to say on a 

subject, and not the opinion of any individual scientist, no matter 

how well qualified that scientist may be, whether they are an EPA 

staff member or they are an EPA manager or a political appointee 

or an external scientist. What science has to say is not something 

that any one person dictates, it is what the science field as a whole 

thinks. 

120 

I would like to offer some general thoughts on the use of science 

in setting environmental standards. Many of our environmental 

laws are cast using the implicit presumption that there is a clear 

scientific answer to the key questions and that any competent scientist acting forthrightly and in good faith will look at the evidence 

and come to essentially the same conclusion. 

In this setting, the agency scientists’ evaluation serve as a surrogate for the opinions of the scientific world as a whole, presuming 

that any competent scientific investigation would yield a definitive 

answer that would be just about the same. Under this view, the 

science advisory board or other high level peer review is mostly to 

provide due process and oversight to ensure that the investigations 

and findings are indeed made competently and in good faith. 

The difficulty with this view is that scientific answers to key 

questions are really not that clear, and different interpretations 

with very different risks of management consequences can be 

made. We always have to face the incompleteness and uncertainty 

in data, even contradictions among the data that we have to evaluate. 

But the debate about these things is an inherent part of how 

science operates. It is not just a reflection of the failure of the 

science, we don’t have the right things on the table or the motivation of the participants. It is the method of science to try to pick 

apart arguments, to separate what you think about things from the 

motivations and the status and the position of the person who is 

propounding them. In short, debate about science, its studies, their 

interpretations, their bearing on the risk assessment questions, is 

not evidence that the science is being manipulated. That is the 

science. That is the science happening. If you want science-based 

regulation, then we want that debate to occur. 

The question then is how do we structure that debate to be helpful to the risk assessment policy process. There are two questions. 

One is, how to ensure that the debate focuses on legitimate scientific issues and not specious arguments, and the other is how to 

make decisions in the face of that. In my view, the way to do this 

is to have a very transparent debate, put things out on the table, 

including a separate step where the science is evaluated and there 

is a scientific advisory board review of the science that doesn’t look 

at what the SAB thinks is the right standard to apply here, but 

rather has that assessment of the full body of opinion of science as 

a whole, with its alternatives and uncertainties in there, being put 

on the table. And then a second step where we decide to do that, 

justifying the choices that we make in view of those questions. 

By putting these things on the table, the uncertainties in the 

first place and the justifications for decisions in the second place, 

so that they can be seen and criticized by others, it will be then 

hard to manipulate this process, because any manipulation would 

be evident. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rhomberg follows:] 

121 


85532.064
122 


85532.065
123 


85532.066
124 


85532.067
125 


85532.068
126 


85532.069
127 


85532.070
128 


85532.071
129 


85532.072
130 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Rhomberg. 

Our final witness, Dr. John Balbus. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. BALBUS, M.D., MPH, CHIEF HEALTH 

SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Dr. BALBUS. Thank you very much for inviting me to provide testimony and bat cleanup for these very loaded bases we have this 

morning. 

My name is John Balbus. I am the Chief Health Scientist for the 

Environmental Defense Fund. EDF is a non-partisan, sciencebased, environmental non-profit organization that partners with 

Government, industry and communities to find practical solutions 

to environmental problems. I am a physician and public health professional, a member of the board on environmental studies and 

toxicology at the National Research Council and a current member 

of NRC committees on risk assessment and nanotechnology. Since 

2004, I have also been a member of EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee. 

Prior to joining EDF, I was a faculty member at The George 

Washington University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, 

where I founded the Center for Risk Science and Public Health and 

co-founded the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the 

Environment, one of 10 pediatric environmental health specialty 

units in the United States. 

So my testimony this morning comes from the perspective of a 

children’s environmental health advocate and member of EPA’s 

Federal advisory committee on children’s health protection. I am 

going to provide examples of what I consider repeated failures of 

the agency to use scientific evidence of children’s risks from environmental agents to craft standards and procedures that adequately protect children. 

The recognition of children’s unique susceptibilities have led to 

the development of special protection for children’s environmental 

health. President Clinton signed Executive Order 13045 in 1997 

and as part of its implementation, Administrator Browner chartered the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee in 

1998. The CHPAC provides advice to EPA on science and policy 

issues that affect children, providing recommendations directly to 

the Administrator in the form of consensus letters. One of its more 

unique features is that this consensus is achieved among technical 

and policy experts from all sectors, including representatives of a 

variety of industries. 

In my written testimony, I describe how EPA decisions on ozone 

and fine particulate matter standards discounted the expert advice 

regarding the State of the science from the EPA’s advisory committees, the CASAC and the CHPAC. I also describe the lack of the 

scientific rigor and the justifications provided for such, and how the 

resulting standards failed to provide adequate protections for children. 

In the interest of time, we have heard a lot about that, I won’t 

go into more detail in these two examples. 

The CHPAC has been urging the EPA since its inception to improve the understanding and management of chemical exposures in 

children. The Committee wrote a letter to the Administrator recomVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85532.TXT VERN
131 

mending that the agency begin to gather the needed data to determine whether exposures to these chemicals are harming America’s 

children, starting with prioritization of the inventory of chemicals 

in commerce under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. 

While the agency has begun to analyze data collected through 

the high production volume chemical challenge program and the inventory update rule to provide understanding of risks posed by existing chemicals on the market, these data are very limited in their 

ability to assess children’s risks, and the use and interpretation of 

these data by the agency to date has been highly questionable. I 

provide more details on this in my written testimony. 

Another area, starting with a pilot project in 2000, the voluntary 

Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program’s stated goal is to ensure 

that there are adequately publicly available data to assess risks 

from chemicals known to be of concern for children. Eight years 

now after the pilot program’s initiation, of the 23 chemicals nominated for the pilot, not a very large number, because there was 

clear demonstration of children’s exposure to these 23, 3 were 

never sponsored by industry, 5 never had data submitted by the industry, 3 had data but no decision on data needs has yet been 

made by the EPA and roughly half, 12, have completed the first 

tier of the program 8 years in. 

A mandatory review of the pilot took place in the fall of 2006 

with a summary of the mostly critical comments published in 

March 2007. Since then, now over a year later, there is still no indication of EPA’s plans to revise, resume or replace this program. 

CHPAC’s comments on the weaknesses of this program have not 

been addressed formally by the EPA. It lies fallow. 

Finally, exposures to cancer-causing chemicals during childhood 

may sow the seeds for the development of cancer later on in life. 

A growing body of scientific evidence documenting this window of 

greater susceptibility in children led EPA scientists to recommend 

adjustments in the way risk assessments are performed for cancercausing chemicals that account for this enhanced potency during 

this time. 

But a subsequent EPA document providing more specific guidance on just how to conduct cancer risk assessments has ensured 

that vanishingly few cancer-causing chemicals will ever meet the 

criteria to be treated as more potent in children. By using the narrowest possible definition of one particular mechanism of causing 

cancer, the agency has in fact strayed from usual risk assessment 

practices and backed off from providing greater protection for children in accordance with their greater susceptibility. 

Taken as individual phenomena, none of these examples might 

stand out as remarkable. They could be considered just the process 

of science. But when considered as a whole, a picture emerges of 

an agency whose senior leadership has repeatedly chosen to stray 

from the clear and science-based recommendations of expert advisory panels, public health organizations—we heard the list that 

wrote on the air standards—and in some cases, even its own career 

staff scientists in order to make policies and decisions that fall 

short of adequately protecting children as well as the general public. 

132 

In some cases these policies and decisions are justified on the 

basis of arguments that run counter to established scientific principles and the judgments of the most prominent experts in the 

Country. In other cases, these policies are made really with little 

justification whatsoever. 

I applaud this Committee for its effort to shine a light on the 

science within EPA and greater transparency in agency decisionmaking. Greater adherence to the recommendations of the agency’s 

scientific experts will help bolster public trust in the agency and 

lead to greater protection of children’s health. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Balbus follows:] 

133 


85532.073
134 


85532.074
135 


85532.075
136 


85532.076
137 


85532.077
138 


85532.078
139 


85532.079
140 


85532.080
141 


85532.081
142 


85532.082
143 


85532.083
144 


85532.084
145 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Balbus. 

I am pleased to announce that we have been joined by Senator 

Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I would invite him to make a statement, if he would like. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman. 

I would like to add my voice to urging the EPA to return much 

more to science-based decision, and away from decisions which, in 

my judgment, are based more on politics. I would like to begin with 

a quote from the President’s father. President George Herbert 

Walker Bush said in 1990, that ‘‘Science, like any field of endeavor, 

relies on freedom of inquiry. And one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever,’’ the President continued, 

‘‘on issues ranging from climate to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, the Government relies on the impartial 

perspective of science for guidance.’’ 

All those of us who are public servants have recognized this principle, that the science behind our environmental decisions must be 

objective, impartial and free of politics. Sadly, this principle has 

been abandoned, in my judgment, by the current Administration 

and the corrupted results are real. They have real effects, they are 

hurtful, they are harmful and sometimes tragic. 

Unfortunately, in my home State of Montana I see this, especially in the town of Libby. In Libby, Montana, people have been 

living with the consequences of 70 years of asbestos contamination, 

most of it caused by W.R. Grace. It is a small town, over 200 people 

have died from asbestos-related diseases there. In the early part of 

the current Administration, the scientists at EPA and the Agency 

for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry determined that a public 

health emergency should be declared in Libby, so that greater resources and expanded authorities could be brought to bear. 

In other words, the effect of that would be the removal of asbestos-contaminated foam insulation in Libby homes as well as attending to asbestos contamination in other parts of the Country. The 

EPA said no, they put that science aside, made the political judgment to not declare a public health emergency. That is a decision 

that greatly benefited W.R. Grace, but to the detriment of the people of Libby, Montana. 

In Libby, EPA management has even drug its heels for 6 years 

in one of the most basic aspects of any of its Superfund clean-up, 

that is, determining the level of toxicity, what is the toxicity of a 

contaminant. Because without this information, EPA cannot tell 

the people of Libby whether or not their homes are clean, what is 

the level of toxicity. They wouldn’t make that determination. 

In response to pressure from me and others, EPA management 

relented and agreed to conduct the necessary toxicity assessments 

in Libby, which will ultimately lead to a science-based position, not 

one based on politics. I am not hopeful, though, that the current 

Administration will follow the science enough and do the right 

thing enough, not when recent guidance issued by EPA enables secrets, influenced by OMB and other agencies, as well as the industries they advocate for, on purely scientific assessments of the toxVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85532.TXT VERN
146 

icity of chemicals. Nor of the new phrases, such as science policy, 

that are used to disguise, in my judgment, old, corrupt practices 

that ignore science and put politics before public health. 

I feel strongly we need to find a way to get EPA to turn much 

more to the principles of objective and impartial science, sciencebased decisionmaking. Because that, after all, is the common denominator, it is the common language, it is basic science upon 

which we all can then make subsequent decisions. We must first 

know the science. We can then make other decisions. But at least 

we need to know the science and the science cannot be corrupted. 

So Mr. Chairman, I join you in finding ways we can help accomplish that objective, because I think it is so important. It also gets 

to the question of American credibility of decisions made by their 

public servants in Washington, DC, whether elected or whether appointed. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Baucus. 

Let me start with a good, solid Rhode Island question for Dr. 

Thurston. We have significant senior population in Rhode Island. 

You indicated in your testimony that using young, healthy adults 

for testing for the ozone standard may not fully take in the consequences on various populations that may be more vulnerable. 

You mentioned infants and children and people with respiratory illness. Would the elderly also qualify as a like more vulnerable population? 

Mr. THURSTON. Well, certainly yes, that is what studies have 

shown. Let me just mention, as a born and bred Rhode Islander 

myself, I want to thank you for your service on this Committee and 

showing such an interest in the environment and the health of 

Rhode Islanders, where I have family members. 

Certainly, saying, older adults, I prefer older adults, actually, to 

seniors. I am getting too close to the category. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They get younger all the time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. THURSTON. I am glad to hear that. But older adults are far 

more susceptible to environmental insults, because many times 

they have pre-existing disease. And when you have a pre-existing 

disease, that makes you more vulnerable to some other insult, like 

an environmental insult, exacerbating your disease situation and 

therefore, you are much more likely to suffer major consequences, 

from an exposure to things like air pollution. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because what we see far too often in 

Rhode Island is, on a summer day, a notice broadcast over the 

radio that it is not safe for infants and young children or older 

Americans to go out of doors because the ozone contamination in 

the air is so high. 

I come from a State that is on the Atlantic Ocean. We get fresh 

air blowing off the cool Atlantic all summer long. If we have this 

problem in Rhode Island, I can only imagine what it is like in other 

States that don’t have that kind of advantage from the point of 

view of our environment. It strikes me that it is important to remember that as we are discussing those sort of abstract numbers 

and these scientific determinations and these process questions, 

that when Administrator Johnson is done saying that 0.075 is OK, 

despite the fact that not a single member of either of his panels 

147 

was willing to go to that number, that has real consequences for 

real people, and it means that they have to stay indoors trapped 

by that decision, they can’t go outside. And it means that if they 

do, they faced increased risks of the kind of medical problems that 

you have described. 

Let me also ask Dr. Balbus, you said that individually versus 

taken as a whole, there are conclusions that one can draw from the 

sort of repeated instances that you have chronicled under this EPA 

leadership. Could you, do you have any either sense or calculation 

as to, on those occasions, when EPA strays from what its own 

science indicates is the proper answer, is it easily balanced or do 

they tend to veer more toward protection of the environment and 

public health or more toward industry? Are there any patterns or 

trends that you have established in the occasions when EPA departs from the range supported by its own scientific evidence? 

Dr. BALBUS. In each of the examples that I provide in the testimony, these were examples where existing standards or procedures 

were being strengthened in order to afford greater protection of 

public health. In each of these examples, the decision that was 

made was always in the direction to not go as far. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Always. 

Dr. BALBUS. In the examples that I provided and in the examples 

that I am aware of. I am not aware of an example—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are not aware of a single example? 

Dr. BALBUS. I am not aware of an example where the Administrators have chosen to err on the side of greater public health protection when any of their science advisory panels have advised, in 

the last, since I have been with EDF for the last 7 years. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Gilman, under Administrator Johnson’s tenure, are you aware of any times when he has departed or 

used the uncertainty principle to depart from scientific recommendations in the direction of greater environmental or public 

health? 

Mr. GILMAN. I am not as great a student of Administrator Johnson’s tenure. I can speak to one, actually, one that the representative of the Environmental Defense stated was the most significant 

public health measure taken since we took lead out of gasoline, 

which is of course the Diesel Rule that was further promulgated 

under this Administration. I don’t think there are too many people 

who would argue with that characterization. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired. Senator Alexander? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for the hearing. Let me thank the witnesses for what they have 

said. 

Let me see if I can derive a constructive suggestion for what to 

do about this black hole that has been talked about today. Dr. Gilman, Dr. Michaels paid you a nice compliment. What was your job 

with the EPA? When were you there? 

Mr. GILMAN. Actually, I was going to say at the start of my testimony, I can’t understand anyone who would ever take the job that 

Dr. George Gray had. That was the job I had while I was at the 

EPA. I was both the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and the Science Advisor. 

148 

Senator ALEXANDER. Is it your understanding of the law that the 

science advisory committee, such as the one that made the ozone 

recommendation are purely advisory? 

Mr. GILMAN. The CASAC is actually a statutorily established 

committee. And there are burdens placed on the Administrator in 

terms of receiving that information. I haven’t read the statute as 

closely, I think probably George had it up on the internet during 

the first part of the testimony. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, let me read you Section 109 of the 

Clean Air Act. The air quality standards, ‘‘In the judgment of the 

Administrator, based on such criteria in allowing an adequate margin of safety that are requisite to protect public health.’’ So has it 

been the practice at the EPA for the Administrator under that provision of law to make the final decision about ambient air standards? 

Mr. GILMAN. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And as I mentioned earlier, and I won’t ask 

you about this, I will just make my own observation, in this case, 

the advisory committee recommended a range of .06 to .07, the Administrator chose .075. So the way I look at it, the Administrator 

disagreed with them less than they disagreed among themselves in 

terms of the range. In other words, they didn’t recommend to the 

Administrator, and I am making this observation myself, that he 

would pick .065 or .063 or .067. He went above that. And then he 

published, under the law, the recommendations of the science advisory committee are public, and we have asked that they be a part 

of this record. 

Then the Administrator made his decision. He is obligated to explain why he made his decision, apparently, and I have asked for 

that to be made part of the record. 

But the problem seems to be this black hole, this interagency review. When did interagency reviews of EPA decisions begin, do you 

know? 

Mr. GILMAN. They probably have happened in ad hoc basis 

through time. Obviously somewhat in the past informal, now being 

proposed much more formally. During my tenure at the agency, we 

tried to make it a practice of informing other agencies that we were 

about to begin an assessment of a particular compound, to alert 

them to the fact that we were going to be doing that work, and invited them to participate in the process that was in place for getting their views and any information they might want to share. 

Senator ALEXANDER. The interagency review occurred during the 

Clinton administration? 

Mr. GILMAN. I can’t speak to whether it happened on an ad hoc 

basis or a more formal basis. But in my experience, and I actually 

served at OMB for a period of time, the interagency process happened sometimes in a very informal way, it happened sometimes 

at the very end of the process. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if 

there were occasions when there was an interagency review. 

Senator ALEXANDER. My understanding is that it did. This is my 

last question. The way I look at this, if the advisory committee is 

advisory and if the Administrator has a judgment to make and he 

makes it based on the criteria, the court can decide whether he was 

within the criteria, some of us might have made a different deciVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 Feb 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85532.TXT VERN
149 

sion, I might have frankly, on ozone, made a different decision than 

the Administrator did. But I think he was within his right to do 

it. 

And if his recommendation is public and if the scientific recommendation is public, that is a lot of transparency. It seems to 

me the so-called black hole is the issue here. And could you suggest 

to us, I mean, I can think of a lot of reasons why discussions of 

our staff, executive sessions of this Committee, members of the 

President’s staff, the decisionmaking, those things aren’t public. 

They are part of the process. 

But can you suggest to us ways that the interagency review 

could be improved so it would build confidence in the process that 

science is being respected in the decision that is being made about 

public health? 

Mr. GILMAN. Yes. I would agree with you that there are times 

when those kinds of deliberations should be private. But I do think 

in this case, frankly, it would serve the best interests of the OMB, 

the best interests of the EPA and best interests of the process, the 

results, the credibility of that, if indeed we returned to what was 

the practice before the most recent policy, which is that the various 

Federal agencies should actively participate in the public process, 

the very public process all the way from the nominating of compounds into the IRIS system, all the way through the process of 

taking in information, putting it through peer review, responding 

to the peer review. The peer review process provides an opportunity for other Federal agencies, other entities, interested parties, 

to participate, add their comments and the like. 

I do think that was the process that provided both the opportunity to be heard and the transparency that improves credibility. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Dr. Gilman. Thanks to the 

other witnesses. Please excuse me. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I understand that Senator Alexander has 

other commitments. We will continue with Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, Senator, before you leave, I just want to tell 

you that you seem to be, well, going back to the—to the whole 

point of whether or not the Administrator acted in a lawful manner. What I want to put in the record, and I hope you will read 

it, is the ten times that this Administrator has been just overruled 

by the courts. And some of the most conservative courts, Janice 

Rogers Brown was one of those justices. 

And I am just going to quickly tell you what they are. And how 

you could say he was within the scope on some of these things, 

when he was clearly outside the scope, you know, people might not 

like it, Dr. McClellan was annoyed, but too bad, you weren’t on 

that particular advisory board and you were overruled. So that is 

life. 

The fact is, here is when they were overturned: Massachusetts 

v. EPA. Supreme Court rejected EPA’s argument that greenhouse 

gases are not air pollutants. In New York v. EPA, EPA’s interpretation that substantial plant modifications did not come within the 

scope of physical change would make sense only in a HumptyDumpty world. This is the court speaking. 

Another one, EPA rules seeking to reverse controls on mercury 

from power plants was unlawful on its face. Another one, this is 

150 

all the Bush administration, not, Mr. Gilman, going back. D.C. Circuit chastising EPA for taking an unlawful approach to emission 

standards. EPA’s efforts to exempt whole categories of toxic pollutants from regulations violated its clear statutory obligation under 

the law. Portions of EPA’s smog rule unlawfully evaded the plain 

language of the Clean Air Act. 

If EPA disagrees with the Clean Air Act, it should take its concerns to Congress. In the meantime, it must obey the Clean Air 

Act. And this one, NRDC, EPA incinerator rules violated the clear 

and unambiguous language of the statute. Another one, EPA’s attempt to create a low-risk subcategory of manufacturing facilities 

exempted from the Clean Air Act was an unlawful attempt to sidestep what Congress prohibited. 

So the point I want to make, before you left, and I am so sorry 

I kept you here, is that all of this is a pattern. We already know 

there is a lawsuit filed against the small particulate matter. I believe that will be another slam dunk for the people fighting on the 

side of science and health. And there is going to be a lawsuit filed 

on ozone, because you went outside. 

So when Justice Scalia clearly states unambiguously that the 

California Clean Air Act says that you cannot put in any other implications, cost or anything else, that is the end of it. But yet this 

Administration keeps doing it time and time again. They are losing 

battle after battle. The people are wining this battle. And I don’t 

understand why this Committee can’t be united in saying that this 

is wrong. I don’t think you can defend the indefensible. I know that 

you and I have great respect for each other, but I don’t see how 

you can he acted within what the scientists recommended when the 

scientists had a range, then he went outside the range. 

And this whole uncertainty, uncertainty, which one of you was 

talking about the tobacco companies? Yes. Dr. Michaels reminded 

us, the tobacco companies, well, we really don’t know that smoking 

causes cancer, we really can’t prove it, and years and years of that 

stuff. And it goes on. Just watch for this word uncertainty, how 

many times the witnesses who here are connected with some of 

these organizations use it. It is the new buzz word, uncertainty. 

And I don’t think that we were born yesterday and we get it. 

But I want to say to Dr. Gilman, thank you for bringing up all 

those headlines from years past. Good for you. Because this is a 

battle that is not part of it. Let’s put up these headlines on more 

time. This is what we are facing here. And I don’t care who does 

it. I don’t care if it is a Democratic President, a Republican President, an Independent President. If they are going to hurt my people and my kids in my State can’t breathe, too bad for them, you 

are wrong. And that is it. And I am going to fight. 

And here you go. White House meddling hobbles EPA, EPA’s 

staff are discussing the issue. Look at this. This is sick. And then 

you have all these decisions by the court which just are unequivocal. One after the other after the other after the other. So it is really a time for us to act, and that is why we are so proud that Senator Whitehouse actually recommended this hearing, and that is 

why he is chairing it. 

I wanted to say to Dr. McClellan, you said that you were very 

angry at this ozone deal. And you put a statement into the record 

151 

at the time stating your point of view at what the level ought to 

be. And you base it—— 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Excuse me, Senator. I did not, enter into the 

record a recommendation as to a numerical standard. That is a 

misstatement that the record should show clearly is a 

misstatement. 

Senator BOXER. OK, is this really, because, I think this is in your 

statement, isn’t it from your statement? OK, this is what you had 

in your statement: ‘‘I submitted my personal comments to the 

ozone docket, and I also joined with nine of my scientific colleagues 

in submitting a document called Critical Considerations in Evaluating Scientific Evidence of Health Effects of Ambient Ozone to the 

docket.’’ You are saying you did not do that? 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Absolutely, that is the document, I think it is 

a seminal piece of—— 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN [continuing].—scientific review. But if you will 

carefully read that document, if your staff will read it, you will not 

find a specific recommendation as to the numerical standard. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I stand by my statement. 

Senator BOXER. Fine. Fine. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Science alone cannot set the standard. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, sir, I am not asking your opinion. You gave 

your opinion. I am trying to read this to you from your own words 

that you submitted this document into the record, which is fine. 

And by the way, it was your total right. 

Now, who funded that study? 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. The Rochester report, which was prepared by 

myself and nine colleagues, was funded by the American Petroleum 

Institute. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I wanted to get at that. Special interests funded the study. Let’s get it straight here. When I hear from 

witnesses, Mr. Chairman, I want to know where they are coming 

from. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is why we made a special effort to make 

certain the report clearly states who sponsored the review and the 

independence of the scientists in preparing the report. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Alexander, did you want to put 

something into the record? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to 

read the cases that Chairman Boxer offered of the number of times 

that the Supreme Court has overruled the EPA during the Bush 

decision, if she will read the number of times the Supreme Court 

and other courts have overruled the Clinton EPA Administration. 

I would ask unanimous consent to put into the record a list of those 

cases where the courts have overruled decisions by the Administrator of the EPA during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We ordinarily close the record of the hearing within a week after the hearing. So the sooner you can get it 

in. 

Senator ALEXANDER. We will summarize it and we will do it 

properly. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You have unanimous consent. 

152 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. And let me say, I fully support that. You know, 

this is the point I made to Dr. Gilman, this is a battle that rises 

above politics. This is about the health of our people. I don’t care 

who does the wrong thing. They better protect the health of the 

people. I don’t care who they are. And I will fight against them if 

they are in my own party or in anything else, if they don’t. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If I could ask just a few more questions. 

Let me start with Dr. Grifo. You have looked into this fairly considerably. A number of witnesses have mentioned the concern about 

the black box. When you have OMB with the ability to have secret 

meetings in the science stage of the EPA determination, and inject 

its point of view, what safeguards are you aware of in the process 

that, in the absence of any transparency, that would restrict the 

OMB input to what might be called pure and legitimate science, as 

opposed to put it bluntly, shilling for special interests that might 

have access to the White House, of which OMB is a part. 

What prevents this from being a back door through which a political interest can get to the White House, the White House can 

give OMB instructions, and the instructions can meet with EPA, 

and because it is all secret, nobody ever knows that there is in fact 

the rankest kind of political influence, direct monied political influence, being brought to bear. What are the structural protections 

that prevent that from happening? 

Ms. GRIFO. There is not much, nothing that I am aware of. I 

think what is really important here is this issue of those documents as they go into OMB are considered pre-decisional. I think 

the problem with that is it means that those of us on the outside 

wanting to see them, wanting to understand them, can’t access 

them through the Freedom of Information Act. They are off limits 

to us. 

And I think we have seen instances where they are clearly predecisional for a very, very long time. They do not move at an adequate pace through the system. And I think today, we have talked 

about numerous examples of this. I think what we would like to 

see is a more consistent effort to put those documents out there, 

because I think we have all said, sunshine is the best disinfectant. 

If the documents are out, we can look at them when they go in, 

we can look at them when they come out, and we can know what 

happened. 

But right now, your Committee has had trouble accessing these 

documents. Other committees have had trouble accessing. And 

those of us that are limited to the powers of FOIA have had trouble 

accessing these documents. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Michaels, as you have looked at some 

of the institutional forces that have been brought to bear to twist 

the science on various issues, particularly in the research for your 

book, but in whatever forum, there are sort of the legendary ones, 

like the American Tobacco Institute and the American Lead Institute, which I had the great pleasure and privilege of actually putting out of business. 

Have you ever come across this Annapolis Center to which Mr. 

Gray belonged for those five or 6 years? And in the scheme of 

things between truly solid, legitimate scientific institutions and 

153 

phony fronts for industry advocacy, where along the spectrum 

would you place that outfit? 

Mr. MICHAELS. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for asking that 

question. I am glad I brought my book along, because in fact, I address that very question here. The Annapolis Center was started 

by a vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers 

for, among other purposes, fighting the EPA’s clean air standards. 

There is documentation from the Wall Street Journal some time in 

the 1990’s on that. 

It is heavily funded by ExxonMobil, from whom it received about 

$700,000 between 1998 and 2005; and by large coal-burning utilities like the Southern Company Corporation, which gave it more 

than $300,000. It produced a series of reports which just say, 

frankly, there is too much uncertainty, we can’t move forward. 

That is their mantra. We see it again and again, there is no science 

there. This is tobacco’s strategy of saying, ‘‘there is too much uncertainty, we can’t move forward,’’ and applying it to pollution. 

Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is that there is a whole 

industry, the product defense industry, which is made up of forprofit corporations that are run by scientists or consultants and 

some of these supposed think tanks that defend every product 

when they are facing regulation. It is ludicrous; the indoor tanning 

association is out there questioning the science around ultraviolet 

radiation and skin cancer. You can always find someone who appears to be a scientist to say, there are questions. 

Then we hear the phrase, sound science, when there are attacks 

on this regulation, but really what it is is something that sounds 

like science. They pull this stuff out to slow down the regulators. 

And unfortunately in this Administration, it works. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. With respect to another similar organization that Dr. Gray was also associated with, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, did that one come up 

in your—— 

Mr. MICHAELS. I haven’t seen that one, but there are lots of these 

organizations. It sounds reasonable on the face, the clean water 

program is set up by some of the polluters who are responsible for 

putting perchlorates in our aquifers. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is their purpose to sound reasonable on 

their face, otherwise they wouldn’t be effective at misleading the 

public, correct? 

Mr. MICHAELS. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All right. You mentioned also that people 

have been cleared out of various positions on advisory and scientific 

boards. I assume one of the people you are referring to is Deborah 

Rice? 

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I found it interesting that the putative 

basis for removing her from her position, talk about Orwellian, not 

only did they remove her from her position, they went back and 

scrubbed the record of anything she had ever said. They sort of 

tried to disappear her as a person, a novel administrative procedure, from my perspective anyway. The reason was an asserted 

conflict of interest. And the conflict of interest was, the asserted 

154 

one, was that she had stated her professional view on a particular 

issue on behalf of the State of Maine in a regulatory proceeding. 

I guess I would ask you if you think having an opinion, a scientific opinion, is what is ordinarily understood in the scientific 

community as a conflict of interest. Because in the legal and political communities that I am familiar with, you are supposed to have 

opinions all day long, you can cite for the things you believe in 

based on facts. A conflict of interest is when you have an association with industry, a financial link, a true sort of conflict of interest 

as opposed to just a conflict of opinion. 

And what is your evaluation of Ms. Rice’s situation? And I ask 

this for a particular reason because as we were preparing for this 

hearing, we have a number of people, scientists either at EPA or 

on EPA panels, who said to us, I would love to come forward and 

testify, Godspeed with what you are doing, this is really important, 

the place is not what it appears and what it should be, but I don’t 

dare come forward now, because I fear retaliation and her name 

was invoked as the, I don’t want to be the next Deborah Rice. 

Mr. MICHAELS. You are absolutely right, it is truly Orwellian. In 

the view of the scientific community, scientists are supposed to 

have opinions. Our job is not just to produce science, but to synthesize, to integrate the scientific studies and come out with some 

judgments. She was on this committee because she was able to do 

that, and Dr. Rice is a very well-known and respected toxicologist 

working for the State of Maine. 

The people we are particularly concerned about are people with 

financial conflicts of interest, because we know from study after 

study that, in fact, a financial relationship can clouds someone’s 

judgment. And the most tragic example probably is Vioxx. We 

know now that Vioxx greatly increases the risk of heart attacks. 

Somewhere in excess of 80,000 heart attacks among Americans 

were caused by Vioxx. If you go back and look at the studies that 

were done five, 8 years ago, we can see that the evidence was there 

from the very beginning that Vioxx increases the risk of heart attacks. 

But numerous scientists paid for by the manufacturer of this 

drug couldn’t see it. They said, when they looked at the evidence, 

well, there is some other reason for these heart attacks, it is the 

other drug people are taking, it can’t really be true that Vioxx was 

cuasing the heart attacks. We are paying the price now with many 

deaths as a result. 

The answer is to make sure that people on these advisory committees have opinions and are good scientists, but have no financial 

conflict of interest. In fact, the International Agency for Research 

on Cancer, which is the World Health Organization’s branch that 

classifies carcinogens, introduced a very successful policy about 3 

years ago that if you have any financial relationship to the issue 

under question, you can’t serve on one of their panels. You can be 

an esteemed representative to testify, as Dr. McClellan might have 

been at their meetings, but you can’t be part of their deliberations, 

because that financial conflict of interest clouds your judgment. We 

should be doing that here at EPA as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired. Senator Boxer? 

155 

Senator BOXER. I just want to again thank you so much, Mr. 

Chairman, for your work. This is important work. And what saddens me is to see the Environmental Protection Agency become a 

shadow of its former self and have people who I think should know 

better say, oh, it is fine. It is not fine. And I guess each of us sees 

our job through our own experience and how things impacted us. 

I remember myself, as a much, much younger person, learning 

about the Pinto, Ford Pinto, and learning about that case. And 

learning that the maker of that automobile actually knew exactly 

what was wrong. And in the discovery part of the lost case, we all 

learned that they put a number to the problem of this engine problem and they said, you know what, it is cheaper for us to simply, 

rather than change it, have these lawsuits, X number of people will 

die, but it will be cheaper for us. It is a disgrace. It is a sin, in 

my view, to have that attitude. 

And I believe that attitude prevails inside the Environmental 

Protection Agency. I do. I believe that our children’s health is expendable to these folks in there who are working at the behest of 

the special interests. I believe it. Just as I believe the tobacco companies knew what they were doing and made this whole uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty. No, they knew. 

And this committee has a job to do. It is not always pleasant. 

But it is very important to blow the whistle when we see these 

things happening. And we see people who are in there, trying to 

fight the good fight get kicked out for no other reason that they 

will not be cowed, they will not come to heel and carry out a political agenda for the special interests. We have seen it time and time 

and time and time again. 

Mr. Johnson refuses to come up here. I know it is unpleasant for 

him. And let me say to him through this day, it is unpleasant for 

me. I don’t like having to argue with him. Because I think it is an 

argument that never should have to take place. We are supposed 

to be doing what is right for the people. That is why we are here. 

And I think as we do what is right for the people, via the environment by the way, I think we help business, Mr. Chairman. Because 

if our workers get sick, they can’t go to work. And the cost of 

health care on a lot of our businesses is skyrocketing. 

We are going to take up some bills next week, I am very excited 

about them, really, to protect the quality of the air around ports. 

We have ships coming into port that are filthy, using bunker fuel, 

coming into your ports, coming into my ports, getting people very, 

very, very sick for no reason when there is an alternative that 

would barely add pennies to a pair of NIke shoes, if that. 

So this hearing, to me, is really the heart of why I got into public 

life in the first place. And I just want to commend you, and I do 

have just a couple of quick questions for our wonderful panel. I 

would say, Dr. Thurston, you mentioned that the American Lung 

Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association and 

many other medical associations led a ‘‘consensus in the scientific 

community’’ that EPA should follow CASAC’s recommendations on 

the ozone standard. Please tell us why you believe the science is 

strong supporting the need for this stronger standard, and what 

156 

the health effects are that CASAC and the experts are so worried 

about. 

Mr. THURSTON. Well, there are just hundreds of studies that 

have been done since the first time that I testified before this Committee, which is 1996, that demonstrate effects below the level that 

the Administrator is trying to set the standard. So many of those 

are epidemiological studies that show these effects. And I gather 

there is a bit of an argument about the controlled exposure studies 

and trying to point to those and saying, well, maybe they’re definitive or not. 

But as I mention in my testimony, that these controlled exposure 

studies don’t always show all of the effects. In 1984, we at NYU 

and researchers at Harvard did a study where we followed children 

in western New Jersey. We demonstrated that as one function 

decrements, decreasing their ability to inhale and exhale air, at 

levels well below the 100 ppb 1 hour standard. At that time, a 100 

ppb ozone level. At that time, the standard was 120 for a 1-hour. 

And they had done controlled exposure studies that failed to demonstrate lung function decrements at 120, below 120. So they said, 

well, basically your epidemiology study must be wrong, because you 

must have a confounder you haven’t considered or something, because we have these controlled exposure study. 

But we said, well, but the reality is, these kids are exercising 

and they are also exposed, not just to 1 hour, but to multiple hours. 

So then they went back and they re-did the controlled exposures 

studies where they had people exercise and expose them to 8 hours. 

And in fact, what they found, they confirmed our epidemiology that 

there were effects well below what the controlled exposures studies 

showed us. And the epidemiology was right, but the standard was 

lowered as a result. 

And we have pretty much the same situation today that we are 

seeing in the epidemiology, which is real people, getting real exposures in the real world. There are just many studies below the 

standard that the Administrator is proposing that show just these 

kinds of effects. And we are seeing severe effects of hospital admissions and now the studies clearly show what I said in 1996, which 

was that there are mortality effects of ozone. The EPA is somewhat 

still in denial about this. They actually did a risk analysis, they 

considered a case where there are no mortality effects of ozone, and 

they pointed to those, and those are the EPRIA. Then that is considered by OMB in doing the standard. 

And that is a ridiculous case. Because we know, and now the National Academy of Sciences has finally confirmed something we scientists have known for a decade, that there are mortality effects 

of ozone. And yet, they considered this ridiculous case of no mortality effects from ozone exposures and I think that that may influence, I know that economics can’t be considered, but OMB does 

consider this and the RIA. And that should not really be in the 

RIA, but that case apparently is. 

So I think the epidemiology speaks strongly for the fact that 

what the Administrator has set as a standard is not the appropriate one. 

157 

Senator BOXER. Right. And I would predict right here and now 

a lawsuit on this. And the people will win it, very clearly. All you 

have to do is look at what Justice Scalia wrote. 

Last question is to Dr. Balbus, and thank you for being here. 

Could you describe in a little greater detail your concern with 

EPA’s management of the children’s chemical evaluation program? 

Dr. BALBUS. This relates to our discussion of science, because 

this is a premier means of getting detailed scientific evidence on 

the effects of chemicals on children. The intent of this was to look 

at chemicals that were found in children’s bodies through bio-monitoring or well-known to be in products to which children are exposed. So already a select group of chemicals of higher risk for children or greater concern for children. And then to get much more 

detailed toxicity information than we usually get for chemicals on 

this subset out of a concern for protecting children. 

Environmental Defense Fund was involved in the development of 

this program from the start, and its structure. They were highly 

critical of the way it was structured, which was a multi-tiered system that would not start out with a full set of data, but would start 

out with a partial set of data and use that to make a decision to 

go further. 

So this pilot study started in 2000. I was part of the original peer 

review expert panel, consultation panel that looked at the submissions from industry. There were issues that I don’t have time to go 

into with regard to the voluntary nature of it and the way that the 

actual documents were developed or written. But we worked 

through those. 

The major issue with this program is just its incredibly slow pace 

and the fact that it seems to have been completely abandoned. 

There was an evaluation that was supposed to happen a couple of 

years ago. The evaluation process, after a delay, got started, and 

there has been no feedback to the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee or to the public that I know of as to the current 

status of the program. 

Senator BOXER. So not much is happening, is what you are saying. It has sort of been a slow walk. 

Dr. BALBUS. It has been a slow walk that has ground to a halt. 

Senator BOXER. OK, a slow walk ground to a halt. Now, I said 

it was my last question, but I found one other. And the Chairman 

said I could do this. 

The EPA’s chemical assessment management program, there is 

a North American Competitive Council which recommendations actions for this program. Do you know about that? 

Dr. BALBUS. I am well aware of this, yes. 

Senator BOXER. I just wanted to say for the record who is making 

these recommendations, who is on this North American Competitive Council regarding EPA’s Chemical Assessment Management 

Program. They are, among others, Chevron, General Electric, General Motors and Lockheed Martin. Now, the last time I checked, 

their mission, their first mission was not protecting the health of 

our kids and of our citizens. They have other missions. Fine. Fine. 

But a mission shouldn’t be confused with protecting our people. I 

wonder if you agree with that. 

158 

Dr. BALBUS. I have to confess, I don’t know exactly what their 

role is. So I can’t really address exactly what it is that they are 

contributing to the ChAMP. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we know that they recommend actions for 

the EPA’s Chemical Assessment Management Program. It is concerning to me because, again, our role is to balance everything. We 

find out what the scientists say, we find out what the economists 

say, we do all this. EPA has a different function, thank God, underscored by the Supreme Court. I say that because otherwise, what 

would we do? We would never do the right thing when it comes to 

protecting health, because there is always a special interest that is 

going to say, I am going to lose X jobs. 

By the way, I think this whole issue of environment versus economics is wrong on its face. I can point to my own State of 38 million people now, Senator, 38 million in my State, and I think it 

must be nice to be able to know everyone in your State like you 

can. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But 38 million people, a huge economy, I don’t 

know, fifth or sixth largest GDP in the world, moving forward, the 

best per capita energy use of any State, a job creator, the home of 

the Silicon Valley and the computers and the biotech and tours and 

agriculture and you name it, it is there, entertainment, you know 

all that, it is all there, fishing, recreation. Now I sound like the 

chamber of commerce. 

The point I am making is that we have to do all that economic 

expansion while keeping our people healthy. And we are certainly 

not perfect, I know I stayed on that, we are not perfect here in this 

Country, but the one thing that Senator Whitehouse and I and others on this Committee want to make sure of is that the EPA wakes 

up in the morning thinking about how they can protect the health 

and safety of the people of this Nation, particularly the most vulnerable. Because the good news is when you protect these kids and 

by the way, gentlemen and lady, and I know the doctors know this, 

if they are medical doctors, but if you are not, if you have never 

seen a child suffering from asthma or gasping for breath, before 

you criticize a tough standard, go see it, OK? Go see it. That is 

what the EPA is supposed to do. 

And yes, Senator Alexander is right, you are going to put everything into the mix at the end of the day, but the EPA, when they 

deal with these pollutants in the air, by law, they must only consider the health of the people. 

So I just want to say, we are in trouble here at this EPA. There 

are whistleblowers hurting because of this EPA. I want to send another message to the workers over there, change is coming. Change 

is coming. Do not give up, do not worry, change is coming. You are 

going to be able to do your work, you are going to be able to be 

proud once again, and that time is coming soon. I thank you very 

much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. Let me take this occasion to 

thank all the witnesses for their time and trouble in coming here. 

It has been a pleasure for me to hear from all of you. I want to 

express my particular gratitude to Chairman Boxer for allowing me 

to go forward with this hearing, to chair this hearing. She has been 

159 

an example to me as a new Senator, watching her lead this Committee, her passion, her desire to get it right, her energy, it is just 

phenomenal. We have seen it again in this hearing, where I have 

been in the unaccustomed position of actually having to hit the 

gavel hammer for my Chairperson. 

Senator BOXER. You did it well, but don’t do it too much. I am 

worried here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think we learned a lot today. I just have 

an awful lot of alarm bells that are ringing right now. From the 

substantive aspect, for instance, an ozone standard, which means 

a lot to my State, that appears to have, at least as of today, no visible means of support, certainly no visible means of support from 

within the scientific community EPA itself relied on for expert 

judgment. If you take that to something that is writ larger and you 

look at I think all of the occasions when EPA has departed from 

its own scientific advice, it is always, infallibly on the side of the 

industry. 

I think, Dr. GIlman, you made a good point by raising the diesel 

emissions. That was a good step that EPA took. I don’t think they 

departed from their scientific standards in doing so. I think when 

they have departed from their internal scientific standards, it has 

always been toward industry, at least it certainly appears that 

way. I would love to have the record corrected if that is not the 

case. 

On a more systemic basis, what I see is an EPA that has systemically and deliberately exposed itself to political influence in ways 

that are new. One is the question of the stacked scientific panels. 

I would note that in contrast to Dr. Rice, who was thrown off for 

having expressed an opinion contrary to where, I guess, EPA wanted to go, we have Robert Shatner, who is an employee of 

ExxonMobil, who served on the expert panel to assess the carcinogenicity of ethyl oxide, which is a chemical manufactured by 

ExxonMobil; James Cloneg, who served on the ethyl oxide panel 

after receiving research support from Dow Agro, a manufacturer of 

ethyl oxide, and the American Chemistry Council; Dale Sickles, 

who sits on the EPA acrylamide panel that has received research 

funding from American Cyanamid, the manufacturer of acrylamide, 

and Cytec, a marketer of acrylamide. 

So it doesn’t seem that there is a particularly high standard for 

conflict of interest for people who, there seem to be different standards for conflict of interest depending on where the EPA administration seems to want to go. 

And then this whole OMB arrangement is a directly fabricated 

vector to bring political influence into EPA determinations. If that 

was what you wanted to do, you couldn’t come up with a better 

strategy. 

And finally, I think the lack of candor that we have seen from 

the EPA witnesses here, I have to applaud Dr. Gray for his ability 

to say what I found to be preposterous things with a completely 

straight face throughout. It is a skill but it is not what I look for 

from people who we entrust with substantial public responsibilities 

that affect the health of Americans across this Country and affect 

our children. 

160 

So to me this has been a very useful hearing. I have been a witness, it is a lot of trouble to come here, it takes a lot of time out 

of your day, you only get a few minutes to say your piece. But it 

has been very helpful, and I appreciate it very, very much. 

So unless there is anything further, the record of this hearing 

will stay open for another week, if anybody would like to propose 

anything to be supplemented. And we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

161 


85532.045
162 


85532.046
163 


85532.047
164 


85532.048
165 


85532.049
166 


85532.050
167 


85532.085
168 


85532.086
169 


85532.087
170 


85532.088
171 


85532.089
172 


85532.090
173 


85532.091
174 


85532.092
175 


85532.093
176 

Æ